Oregon ARES Gets $250k for WinLink, Communications Systems Reliability
I just read an article on the ARRL web page titled "Governor's $250,000 Grant to Amateur Radio Goes Online as Oregon Hams Install New Winlink System".
This is a wonderful example of how Amateur Radio has helped in a disaster. In this case the demonstration of communications ability when all other systems are down or degraded was enough to persuade an elected official to support Ham radio - in a big way. This should be an example to other states as well. As the saying goes "When all else fails, Amateur Radio Works".
You know, this has me thinking. I am sure most people that have anything to do with communications systems (and are knowledgeable about those systems) have thought the same thing (whether it be public service, ham radio, emergency services, what have you):
If we, meaning Amateur radio operators, can work so well in disasters and are relied upon in many cases, why can't the communications systems already in place WORK?
Now, if they DID work, Ham radio wouldn't be relied upon in disasters. That would probably be bad in terms of the wide support for Ham radio in public service and emergency communications. After all, that is 99% of the face that the public sees of Amateur radio - not our rag-chews on HF, not the big fancy SteppIR beam we put on a 90' tower, not Morse code, not Digital Modes, not direction finding...... In fact most of those would probably deter the public! We need all the support we can get so our bands are not devoured by the FCC.
It is an intriguing question though - Why don't the communications systems already in place work in disasters? Why can't there be back-up systems that work?
My thoughts, and if you don't agree that is perfectly fine:
I think the communications systems in place are too complicated. The people using the systems (not necessarily the ones who set up the systems) are not educated in the workings of the system and their job doesn't require them to learn. Lastly, the cost involved in the system technology, implementation, and maintenance is too high.
It just seems weird that Ham radio, being a non-profit service/organization, just seems to WORK. Maybe that is because we talk on our radios for fun and are interested (the majority of us) in the inner workings of the "system". Our equipment is mostly self-provided (Oregon's WinLink at their EMA centers excluded) and we do our training in our own time and with our own materials.
We need more Hams in the world. I am sure we can solve a lot more problems! As for Oregon's grant -
Governor Kulongoski, Can you persuade the rest of the country to do the same?
This is a wonderful example of how Amateur Radio has helped in a disaster. In this case the demonstration of communications ability when all other systems are down or degraded was enough to persuade an elected official to support Ham radio - in a big way. This should be an example to other states as well. As the saying goes "When all else fails, Amateur Radio Works".
You know, this has me thinking. I am sure most people that have anything to do with communications systems (and are knowledgeable about those systems) have thought the same thing (whether it be public service, ham radio, emergency services, what have you):
If we, meaning Amateur radio operators, can work so well in disasters and are relied upon in many cases, why can't the communications systems already in place WORK?
Now, if they DID work, Ham radio wouldn't be relied upon in disasters. That would probably be bad in terms of the wide support for Ham radio in public service and emergency communications. After all, that is 99% of the face that the public sees of Amateur radio - not our rag-chews on HF, not the big fancy SteppIR beam we put on a 90' tower, not Morse code, not Digital Modes, not direction finding...... In fact most of those would probably deter the public! We need all the support we can get so our bands are not devoured by the FCC.
It is an intriguing question though - Why don't the communications systems already in place work in disasters? Why can't there be back-up systems that work?
My thoughts, and if you don't agree that is perfectly fine:
I think the communications systems in place are too complicated. The people using the systems (not necessarily the ones who set up the systems) are not educated in the workings of the system and their job doesn't require them to learn. Lastly, the cost involved in the system technology, implementation, and maintenance is too high.
It just seems weird that Ham radio, being a non-profit service/organization, just seems to WORK. Maybe that is because we talk on our radios for fun and are interested (the majority of us) in the inner workings of the "system". Our equipment is mostly self-provided (Oregon's WinLink at their EMA centers excluded) and we do our training in our own time and with our own materials.
We need more Hams in the world. I am sure we can solve a lot more problems! As for Oregon's grant -
Governor Kulongoski, Can you persuade the rest of the country to do the same?
posted by Steve at
1:07 PM
1 Comments:
Amateur Radio "works" during a disaster because it's highly decentralized. It's hard to completely wipe it out during an incident. It's easy to wipe out a centralized communication hub, it's difficult to wipe out a bunch of spread out radios.
It's nothing to do on how "complicated" these systems are. The fact that public safety agencies are needing ARES and RACES less and less during large incidents (Almost every time there is a press release or ARRL story they say they were "ready" or on "standby" not doing something) is proof of that.
Ironically, by putting these stations inside the EMAs, it's causing their Amateur Radio capability to be susceptible to the same problem. If the EMA gets knocked out, they're back to square one.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home