'When Networks Fail, Hams to the Rescue'

'When Networks Fail, Hams to the Rescue'

PC World magazine has published an article titled 'When Networks Fail, Hams to the Rescue'

The article covers the recent Field Day activities by Radio Amateurs which demonstrated that Hams are ready to set up 24/7 communication sites when disaster strikes.


Read the article at:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/148040/when_networks_fail_hams_to_the_rescue.html







Don't wait all week for the news!
Amateur Radio News - updated daily - 365 days per year

Get our News Headlines for your Website:
http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm

Send Us Your News Items:
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm

 

Imbedded WinLink Ad

This clip says it all: "..MARS also operates a publicly available e-mail relay service called Airmail that is popular with those traveling the country in RVs and yachters sailing off the coast, says Marc Slater (KB1DFE), the Region 1 Emergency Operations Officer for MARS. All you need to run Airmail is a ham license, radio, modem and list of frequencies on which Airmail stations operate. There are 36 sites in North America, one of which Slater runs from his house in Brookline, N.H. And, it's free."

This is clearly what the WinLinkers advertise, to encourage yachters and RVers to get ham tickets (and SCS Modems) for free email on the go. To say nothing that the quote makes it sound like all hams can use the MARS system for Winlink emailing which, of course, is inaccurate.

Did he mention that a for-fee service called Sail Mail is also available to yachters? Virtually the same thing. Did he also mention that using amateur radio to avoid a for-fee communications service is unlawful?

This, folks, is one of the reasons why Mr. Hollingsworth did not do his job fairly and effectively. People who could otherwise use a for-fee communications service, chose using amateur radio to avoid paying for the commercial version. That is a practice that is clearly a violation of Part 97 regulations. Hollingsworth knew that. He was informed and did nothing to cite, let alone warn yachters who do this that it violated FCC regulations.

73.

 

Please quote the FCC regulation that states that. The only thing I can remember is in regards to:

Phone patches and autopatches should never be made solely to avoid telephone toll charges. Phone patches and autopatches should never be made when normal telephone service could just as easily be used.

A phone patch is different than a packet digital system that relays email IMHO.

Thanks

Andy
WJ9J

 

Unauthorized tranmissions.

Part 97.113 - Prohibited Transmissions
(a) No amateur station shall transmit: (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.

Winlink as an eMail service provider is not allowed.

 

Let's take a good look at that statement (97.113). "Communications on regular basis" Aren't all net activities done on a regular basis?

"which could reasonably be furnished" The word reasonably sure leaves things wide open.

"through other radio services". Wonder what that means? Maybe FRS, GMSR, or CB radio services. I don't know.

My point is that when ever somebody starts talking about this section and things like I heard recently "toll fraud" it seems to me than almost any communications via amateur radio could be considered illegal.

 

Clearly, according to w6em's rules local repeater traffic is also illegal. Please give me a break. All my local ham friends except one have cell phones. So if I talk to them via the repeater when I could use the cell phone instead I'm breaking 97 rules? While not the subject of his post the logical conclusion is that his intepritation would have unintended results.

 

The section, 97.113a(5), has nothing to do with amateur to amateur random communications. Over the years, it has been used to stop the use of amateur radio from becoming a common carrier. That is, building a system equivalent to a commercial radio service.

Now, if hams were to install cell-like trunked sites everywhere and adapt surplus cell phones to 900 MHz spectrum to be used identically to how cell phones are used, that would probably constitute a violation.

Since it is my understanding that the folks who wrote AirMail are the same folks who wrote SailMail, and is identical in form and function. At the same time, they set up a for-fee, maritime radio pactor system worldwide to pass email. The amateur radio adaptation and construction of the same thing would constitute, at least in my mind, a violation. Especially if it is handling 3rd party email traffic to or from the amateur and not limited to only amateur to amateur traffic.

This has been pointed out to the former FCC Special Counsel for Enfarcement, but it fell on deaf ears. Instead of taking proper action against this, he wasted his time translating acidic hate mail from repeater trolls.

73.

 

Lee,

I've been chewing on the concept of "pecuniary interest" in a way that bolsters your point about how we are prohibited from constructing a (commercial) Common Carrier within the Amateur Service.

Traditionally and historically we know it's a violation when we would be paid for, or otherwise make money from activities involving spectrum allocated to the Amateur Service.

But the legal definition of "pecuniary interest" is when someone's activity is linked with revenue. Here, that may also include the intent to avoid paying money by establishing activities normally found in a commercial arena.

Unfortunately, the only test that comes to mind was when the FCC granted us the ability to use autopatch to connect to commercial telephone service through our non-commercial radios. The comparison to WinLink is a little off, since autopatch communications were in the clear and were originated by the licensee to a single destination. The information in those phone calls was easily subject to peer review and self-policing.

It's quite possible someone could think this through and show how an email-over-ham radio system directly conflicts with the FCC's intent of our using amateur spectrum only for personal communications.

 

There's also the old use of phone patches to ostensibly (yes) avoid telephone toll charges. But, in this case, the regulation mentions another radio service, so that preempts that thought. Although, in concept, it was a dodge.

Tolerated, as I recall, since the use was only repetitive and frequent in the case of calls made by and for US military personnel and their families when separated by continents. On top of that, military stations were either the originators or the recipients, so it had government endorsement.

 

In light of new legislation protecting the phone companies, maybe an apt slogan...

"When All Else Spies...Amateur Radio" ;-|

73,

---* Ken

 

Yes, Albert, enforcement has been placated by what amounts to fiddling by our outspoken national association. You and Paul are thoroughly knowledgable and understand the scope of the problem.

The interests of Homeland Security would be adequately served by MARS exclusive use of WinLink for its official traffic and not for run-of-the-mill email transfers. My understanding of MARS' system is that it is not used for routine email origination, transfer and receipt. Only for the official purposes of MARS.

The other side of the issue would be the argument that another such network, as exists outside of MARS, would be supposedly needed for Homeland Security in spite of the MARS network.

Reliance on the Internet in a crisis is a dangerous crutch, since it is 1) vulnerable to sabatoge; 2) vulnerable to infrastructure failure; and 3) vulnerable to overload as are public switched telephone networks (wireline and cellular). And, further, as has been repeated over and over, Internet email is NOT real time. It is delayed. In a true emergency, that likely will not be good enough to save lives and property. MARS, in fact, primarily uses it for the submission of "domestic espionage" reports to a Pentagon official (Essential Elements of Information Reports).

Of course, there are elements who obfuscate the issues with their own pecuniary interests in mind, whether that be profiteering from modem sales or software usage fees and the like. Or, simply driven by their taste for 'ego cheese.' (I did it, I control it, or I made it)

Suffice it to say that all incoming email content gets passed along day in and day out. Everything from spammer porn to "Shop at Sears and Save" bulletins are received identically as if directly from landline or WiFi connections. If that isn't a common carrier-like scenario, then I don't know what one would be.

Perhaps a solution to the content monitoring dilema might be for the ARRL to purchase SCS modems for all OOs. That way, at least all who are officially charged with monitoring amateur operations would be able to do just that.

73.

 

You can try to blame Hollingsworth all you wish, but I think the Commission made it fairly clear in their recent ruling against the attempt to outlaw PACTOR III that they have no interest in ending existing popular amateur activities, and WinLink, for good or ill, is popular. In my comments on the petition, I specifically asked the Commission to consider the legality of WinLink in light of the availability of competing radio-based email services (of which SailMail is one). They did not address that comment.

 

And, why shouldn't I? How many ham-attorneys are employed by the arm of the FCC that enforces its regulations promulgated for the amateur service?Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect his being asked for his input, opinion, etc., on matters of interest with respect to the amateur service?

Only a fool would think not.

As to not addressing your SailMail duality comment, I would put that in the usual category of bureacratic reluctance to take any action that would generate more workload. Certainly not one of correctness.

There are more notorious examples. Take the FCC's decision allowing the broadcast of plainly obscene language, so long as its not used when describing an obscenity. Make sense?

Or, how about Janet Jackson's intentional disrobing on national TV with nary a wimper from the FCC. Until, that is, the public outcry to Congress forced their hand.


73.

 

1. In point of fact, Winlink does not rely upon the Internet. It totally by-passes the Internet. That is the very significant advantage of the system. It can also operate on HF, VHF, and/or UHF -- allowing minimal impact on radio channels. If necessary to go beyond the "local" site, after a site is reached that has Internet access, the traffic is completely removed from the radio channels. Again, minimizing radio channel impact.

2. By misunderstanding the nature of "emergency traffic", and of the Winlink system -- you use unrealistic and incorrect assumptions. Winlink is used to move RECORD TRAFFIC -- not "send a chopper NOW" traffic. Record traffic is the highly detailed needs of the disaster area and the responses to those requests. If you never had the miserable experience of sitting with critical traffic while some @#$$#@ passed a written message over the only available voice channel, you may not understand just how horribly slow and inaccurate that process actually is. Winlink handles the same message (and larger messages) with 100% accuracy is a tiny fraction of the time -- and in LESS bandwidth.

3. All content does NOT get passed along. Unless the sender is on a specific list for that specific recipient, the traffic will never be seen by the intended recipient. There is no commercial content, and no spam that ever reaches the airwaves. Further, the 30 minutes per day MAXIMUM AIRTIME LIMIT is rarely (if ever) used by any station.

These false rumors were spread by a tiny clique of people led by someone whose ideas were not found to be in the best interests of the hobby. That person has spread known false and deliberately misleading nonsense since that time. The SLOOOOWWWW "protocol" that he created is totally and completely useless for any sort of "real world" EMCOMM, and he seemingly cannot get over the "loss".

 

Greetings to All: Damn Fine report, did us Hams proud! Rock On, even for us old farts who are late bloomers into the hobby. Special Thanks to the young Hamster who is leading the charge for more youngin's to come aboard! We need you kids, for the future. Blessings to all and 73's Tom KD7ZOS