On Feb 4, 9:29 am, K6LHA wrote:
From: "Michael J. Coslo"
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:43:46 EST
Subject: The Theory of Licensing

On Jan 31, 8:19 pm, wrote:

Yet time after time, the systems that we come up with just fail. And
the problem is always that the best laid plans to take the skilled
operator out of the link fail. The reason is pretty simple. The effort
to remove the decisions that an educated operator would make add
infrastructure to the system. When the wheels com off, the
infrastructure fails. The same forces that destroy, flood, and freeze
the victims of disaster also have an effect on the infrastructure that
is in place to rescue them.

To me, that is a confusing paragraph. As far as I've seen in more urban
areas, the "infrastructure" survives quite well and has been proven to
do so in some very serious events. That takes planning by "skilled,
knowledgeable" managers. I'm talking about the telephone
infrastructure, the public safety infrastructure, and even the
broadcast infrastructure. If an emergency is totally catastrophic to
eliminate some "infrastructure," it will also eliminate the amateur as
a potential savior.

Its a matter of system complexity. The more complex the structure, the
more likely the failure.

In our area, we have a 10 year old system that doesn't work under
normal conditions, much less emergency ones They are trying to replace
it now, but we spent a whole lot of money and got very little for it.
It was touted as a great thing when it was installed. And it wasn't
inexpensive or put together



I've seen, over TV, some rather catastrophic emergencies, brought to
everyone by the news media of several networks, including showing in
the background the communications vehicles and equipment of various
National Guard units (source: flooding of rivers beginning in the
Dakotas). Add to that the First Gulf War bombing in Iraq done by a CNN
news team, none identified as amateur licensees.

Most very respectfully Len, I now understand the confusion.

The amateurs are not there to provide news via satellite, or to do
television shows. We're not part of public safety or broadcast
stations.

We're there to pass along communications behind the scene.

Where this shows up is in the how of our work. It isn't glamorous, to
be sure. But in most cases, a satellite reporter from some disaster
scene is going to be there to give a news report. Not so likely a
request for say, shovels and toilet paper. It's all part of post
disaster work.

Broadcast stations are in a similar state. Their part is more likely
to give people info about avoiding the areas in question, or
evacuation routes to follow. Amateurs wouldn't be doing that, because
there isn't a receiving end. Most everyone has a Television and a AM/
FM radio. Not so many have a 2 meter radio.

So the typical placement might be as such:

Some place has an emergency, let's say a modern day version of the New
Madrid earthquake.

We'll likely be looking at some different teams heading into the area.
There will be lots of first responders, like National guard,
firefighters, Medical personnel, and the like. There will probably be
some Hams also. News teams will be there.

Each group will be doing it's thing. The Hams will likely be passing
along messages for the sort of thing I mentioned above, another part
will be getting messages to the outside world about "We're still
around". It's possible that the cell system functioned perfectly in
your area, but typically the post disaster scenario has been one in
which everyone is calling to see if their relatives are doing okay. If
the cell towers still have electricity, they get clogged quickly, if
they don't, their backup systems go down after a while. While we may
communicate via cell if it is working, I don't know of anyone who has
cell phones in their disaster comm plans.

So anyhow, I think you might be mistaking other groups issues, like
the broadcasting and newscasting industries with the job of setting up
radio stations and passing along messages for health and welfare. Hams
aren't usually on the front lines, they're just performing a part in
the process.

And yes, a large part of why they are doing it is both that the
infrastructure that might be used otherwise fails, and that while it
might look effortless, there is knowledge that ends up being a big
help in getting the message through that has been lost by the idea
that the communicator only need to know how to talk, and that
technology can fill in for the missing knowledge.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -