[Namaste-dev] Emergency communications portion of the system - REPLY -
gmouse at neo.rr.com
Tue Jul 8 09:47:16 PDT 2008
Paul, Below are my responses:
From: namaste-dev-bounces at AMSAT.Org [mailto:namaste-dev-bounces at AMSAT.Org]
On Behalf Of Paul Williamson
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:41 AM
To: Gunther Meisse
Cc: namaste-dev at AMSAT.Org
Subject: [Namaste-dev] Re: White paper
At 8:54 AM -0400 7/6/08, Gunther Meisse wrote:
>There can be only one "COOK", be it a
>human or software, or we will burn the stew, as well as being laughed out
>any big money or respect for the system.
I am not sure I know what you're saying here. Can you restate it without the
I AM SAYING IN AN EMERGENCY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM THERE NEEDS TO
BE "SOMEONE" (Net Control) OR "SOMETHING" (Darn good software) IN CONTROL. I
AM SAYING SUCH A COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (Emergency situation) MUST BE LIKE A
PYRAMID WITH CONTROL AT THE TOP. Sorry for the metaphors but that is how I
illustrate my points.
>One off the wall idea is to issue codes via the internet or other means ...
Our big selling point to the emergency services community is that we don't
rely on any fragile infrastructure, such as the internet. If we need such a
security system, we'll want to implement it ourselves via the satellite
MAKES REAL SENSE...
If we think such a system is needed, somebody ought to get started on
drafting the requirements. They should probably also be drafting rules to
propose to the FCC to make it clearly legal to do so. And, they should
research the legal implications in all the other countries of interest.
I THINK THE FCC IS A SLAM DUNK. EMERGENCY, HOMELAND SECURITY, FEMA USES ARE
GETTING WHAT EVER THEY WANT RIGHT NOW.
>The portion which
>links the officials must be clean of "jabbering hams" during the emergency
>operations. We must remember that we are providing a service to others
>during this time of operation. Past experience with weather nets, hurricane
>nets etc reek of people calling to ask what time it is? In the Emergency
>Operations Mode, the Ham is in a "Fulfillment Role" not a talk one.
I fear that any attempt to replace operator discipline with technical
solutions is doomed to failure. Your "admission ticket" idea can work to
limit access, but it won't be very good at granting access rapidly to new
stations that may have legitimate traffic. Personally I would not be very
happy about a system that assumes by default that a licensed ham radio
operator is not to be trusted to make the decision about when to transmit.
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO THINK YOU ARE CORRECT.. MY EXPERIENCE TELLS ME
OTHERWISE. I THINK IN A INFO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LIKE THIS WE NEED TO LIMIT
ACCESS TO THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED IT, LIKELY THROUGH THE DISSEMINATION
SYSTEM YOU REFERRED TO ABOVE, AND THEN JUST RELY ON THE GOOD PRACTICES OF
THE OPERATORS. I DO WONDER HOW WELL THE NON HAMS (LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE,
ETC) WILL DEAL WITH A MIC THEY CAN PICK UP AND USE. ONE OF THE NEW HLS OHIO
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS TRUCKS VISITED OUR TV STATION AND WE HAD AN
INTERESTING DISCUSSION ABOUT "WHO GETS TO TALK & WHEN" THE OTHER ISSUE THEY
HAD IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY LISTEN TO ABOUT TWO OR SO SOURCES AT ONCE. I'LL
ATTEST TO THAT FROM MY EXPERIENCE BACK IN THE COMMERCIAL TRANSMITTER DUTY
DAYS WHEN WE HAD TO RECORD THE NETWORK, DO SPOT PRODUCTION, AND CUE UP SPOTS
FOR THE AIR PRODUCT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. EIGHT HOURS OF THAT AND YOU WERE
MUCH TO BE PONDERED !
kb5mu at amsat.org
Namaste-dev mailing list
Namaste-dev at amsat.org
More information about the Namaste-dev