Emergency communications
Jim Hampton
From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
I just received this in a group I belong to. Please notice the second
sentence in the note:
************** begin copy of note***********
When you can't get in touch with your DD and there are
bombs going off where she works, I guess that that is
stress.
Landlines and mobile phone lines are down.
My dd finally emailed me. One of the bombs went off
near her place of work. She's ok.
I just got word from a very good friend that the
police might evacuate her building coz she is in the
mile square of all this activity.
Sp prayers please for all those in London who were
caught up in this horrible event.
Thanks.
Carol(England)
************** end of copied message*******
I certainly hope our friends across the pond will come out of this with
little loss of life and the individuals behind those bombs are brought to
justice.
That aside, do *not* count too heavily on cell phones (or land lines, for
that matter) in an emergency.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
Kenny
"Jim Hampton" <aa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:vZeze.231$cg...@news02.roc.ny...
> Hello, gang
>
> From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
> one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
Not bad! I rate your troll 6 on a scale of 10, especially skillful
the way you take advantage of a tragedy currently in the news.
Cmd Buzz Corey
But the truth remains, that cell phones often are not capable of
providing all the communications needed. If they aren't knocked out,
then the cell sites are overloaded with every cell user attempting to
make a call.
Kenny
"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@that.moc> wrote in message
news:Zp6dnepP2p5...@gbronline.com...
Ahh, but if you have certain very closely guarded codes, you can
get right through. Hams are still in denial that they stopped being
relevant a couple decades ago, but it is understandable that obese
old white men still want to hang on to memories of years gone by
and 80 lbs. ago. Truth is, go to any hamfest. The nachos and cheese
sell faster than cell phones. Yuk, those dried cheese stains you see
at hamfests always gross me out. CB radios are far more useful
in emergencies.
Cmd Buzz Corey
So how many have these 'certain very closely guarded codes" to use for
emergency? Do all emergency personell have access to these codes?
Hardly. How many emergency workers at the scene of a disaster have these
codes? Probably none.
Ham radio is included in NORAD's emergency planning, cell phones aren't.
Why? Because they know cells phones are practically useless in a real
disaster.
What good do those 'very closely guarded codes' do if all the cell sites
are down?
b.b.
Jim Hampton wrote:
> Hello, gang
>
>
> From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
> one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
A false assumption promoted by Steve Robeson, K4YZ.
Of course, the cell phone is more widely available to the public than
your amateur radio. The cell phone may keep working just fine in
personal or small emergencies. The cell phone often works during the
initial stages of a larger emergency. In other words, the cell phone
can be extremely useful.
> I just received this in a group I belong to. Please notice the second
> sentence in the note:
> ************** begin copy of note***********
> When you can't get in touch with your DD and there are
> bombs going off where she works, I guess that that is
> stress.
>
> Landlines and mobile phone lines are down.
>
> My dd finally emailed me. One of the bombs went off
> near her place of work. She's ok.
I'm going to guess that if she's OK, that "dd" doesn't mean "dearly
departed."
so what does "dd" mean?
> I just got word from a very good friend that the
> police might evacuate her building coz she is in the
> mile square of all this activity.
>
> Sp prayers please for all those in London who were
> caught up in this horrible event.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Carol(England)
>
> ************** end of copied message*******
Prayers go out.
> I certainly hope our friends across the pond will come out of this with
> little loss of life and the individuals behind those bombs are brought to
> justice.
>
> That aside, do *not* count too heavily on cell phones (or land lines, for
> that matter) in an emergency.
>
> 73 from Rochester, NY
> Jim AA2QA
Jim, rely on no SINGLE form of communications. Always have a back-up
plan.
b.b.
Kindly poll the RSGB and get the number of amateur radio operators
(complete with portable radios) that were in the subways and busses
affected.
Thanks.
Jim Hampton
"b.b." <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1120774407.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are correct; one cannot count on any one form of communications. Cell
phones are *great* in a personal situation; I cannot imagine a more useful
form of communications. The larger the area impacted, the more you need to
rely on something that can communicate outside of the affected area. A
direct to satellite cell phone might work well in such an instance, assuming
that it does not suffer from traffic overload (not to mention the cost of
owning such a device).
When 911 hit, however, things were a bit different. I was on AT&T and I
lost my ISP for a week despite being over 300 miles away from NYC. Of
course, the normal phones and cell phones worked (in Rochester) normally.
AT&T had a major network in NYC and their service was affected considerably.
In the note that I copied, the dd refers, I believe, to diabetes dietitian.
It was copied from a diabetes group which is international in scope.
Jim Hampton
You know as well as I that neither cell phone, cb, nor amateur radio will
work well (if at all) if you are in a subway far from an exit. Radio waves
do not fare well from underground nor under water ;)
Scott in Baltimore
b.b.
and the bus?
Cmd Buzz Corey
Gee, didn't know bb made such a stupid statement as I never read bryan
burps meaningless postings.
Jim Hampton
"Scott in Baltimore" <scott_...@yapoo.com> wrote in message
news:42CDCF63...@yapoo.com...
> Kenny, you troller, this was only on RRAP until you cross-posted!
Good call, Scott
Always happy to see someone exhibiting more than a modest double-digit IQ in
the newsgroups ;)
Jim Hampton
"Kenny" <ce...@cellphonewrkgreat.net> wrote in message
news:dak66n$nk6$0...@pita.alt.net...
<MorseMail>2001.05.27
+180-180+60-60+60-60+60-60
+60-180+60-60+60-180+60-60+60-60
+60-420+60-60+60-180+60-60+60-60
+60-420+180-60+180-60+180-180+180-60
+60-180+60-60+180-60+60-60+60-180
+180-60+60-60+180-60+180-420+60-60
+180-420+180-180+60-180+60-60+60-60
+60-180+180-180+60-60+180-60+60-60
+180-60+60-60+180-501
</MorseMail>
I can be silly too :))
I can use Canadian repeaters just fine from my HT with a whip antenna on it.
No external power supply and no external antenna (beyond the whip attached
to the HT). Oh, I'd best specify - that is from Rochester, NY, not up in
Canada.
That is across Lake Ontario using only 6 aa alkaline batteries. I have no
problem accessing Bristol Mountain either (located a bunch of miles away).
Nor about 13 other repeaters in the area. Which gives me a reliable range
of 40 or 50 miles (or more) in any direction to a repeater. Add a bunch
more miles from there to a mobile or another HT.
Run your linear from your cb (with gas at $2.25 per gallon). See what you
can hear on a reliable 24/7 basis. I do not have to contend with someone
yelling "audiooooo".
BTW, I'm only 155 pounds and 5' 8" tall. No fat.
Troll, troll, troll your boat :)))
With all due regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
Steve Stone
> But the truth remains, that cell phones often are not capable of
> providing all the communications needed. If they aren't knocked out,
> then the cell sites are overloaded with every cell user attempting to
> make a call.
>
And that is why montioring the PD on my scanner most of the radio comms
start with " Call me on your NEXTEL"
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"b.b." <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> Jim Hampton wrote:
>> > From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
>> > one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
>>
>> A false assumption promoted by Steve Robeson, K4YZ.
>>
>> Of course, the cell phone is more widely available to the public than
>> your amateur radio. The cell phone may keep working just fine in
>> personal or small emergencies. The cell phone often works during the
>> initial stages of a larger emergency. In other words, the cell phone
>> can be extremely useful.
That's HERESY in this newsgroup! :-)
In this morning's Los Angeles TIMES, page one, is a story on
the London bombings stating that the estimated number of
cell phones in the USA is 192 MILLION now and about a third
of them have video capability. Network news on TV showed many
short video clips from the immediate disaster areas in London.
I have yet to see any TV news talking about "amateur radio
emergency communications" in the London area. <shrug>
No doubt someone in here will insist that all the video clips
are "fakes" because "everyone knows that cell phones go down
in any emergency." :-)
>> Jim, rely on no SINGLE form of communications. Always have a back-up
>> plan.
>
>You are correct; one cannot count on any one form of communications. Cell
>phones are *great* in a personal situation; I cannot imagine a more useful
>form of communications. The larger the area impacted, the more you need to
>rely on something that can communicate outside of the affected area.
We can always count on the Amateur Emergency Corps to come
through with "CW" and the johnny-on-the-spot morsemen.
>When 911 hit, however, things were a bit different. I was on AT&T and I
>lost my ISP for a week despite being over 300 miles away from NYC. Of
>course, the normal phones and cell phones worked (in Rochester) normally.
>AT&T had a major network in NYC and their service was affected considerably.
AT&T divestiture was some time ago...:-)
"9/11" (the attack on the World Trade Center) was 4 years ago.
NYC government communications managed to work through despite
considerable damage to lower Manhattan Borough. <shrug> Area
of damage was only a few square miles. You were 300 miles away?
The 1994 Northridge Earthquake was 11 years ago. I was IN it.
Area affected was roughly 400 square miles. TOTAL primary
electrical power was CUT OFF for about 10 million population.
LA and surrounding incorporated city communications continued
to function, local utilities' communications continued to
function despite loss of primary electrical supply.
Conspicuously absent was amateur emergency communications
which arrived (for health and welfare messaging) AFTER the
FEMA fly-away-terminals arrived and were functioning. I don't
know if the cell phones "all went down" since I didn't have
one then...but the wired telephones worked fine after the
first two hours of subscriber panic was over.
BTW, the cell sites in the L.A. area are equipped with back-
up power in case the primary electricity goes out. Central
offices have had battery back-up since the year dot. AM
and FM broadcast stations had emergency power generators and
were functioning okay even if the personnel were a bit shaky.
In London and, earlier, Madrid, the government communications
kept on going through bombings. Gosh, with the way so many in
here talk, absolutely NOBODY but the hams had any comms at all!
<shrug> BTW, Yurp has an even higher density of cell phones
than the USA according to the L.A. TIMES story.
>It was copied from a diabetes group which is international in scope.
Tektronix is international in 'scope.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"b.b." <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
>> > Kenny wrote:
>> > > "Jim Hampton" <aa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>
>> Kindly poll the RSGB and get the number of amateur radio operators
>> (complete with portable radios) that were in the subways and busses
>> affected.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>You know as well as I that neither cell phone, cb, nor amateur radio will
>work well (if at all) if you are in a subway far from an exit. Radio waves
>do not fare well from underground nor under water ;)
Use "CW." "CW gets through when nothing else will..."
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> No doubt someone in here will insist that all the video clips
> are "fakes" because "everyone knows that cell phones go down
> in any emergency." :-)
>
which case it is just acting as a digital camera, isn't quite the same
as attempting to use it to communicate.
b.b.
Not true. "CW gets through when everything else will..."
Dan/W4NTI
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1120845376....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sure does.....you can get a metal object, perhaps even a hammer or a wrench,
and tap Morse Code on the rails.
Come on Lennie the Loser......tell us why it won't work.
Dan/W4NTI
b.b.
This is RRAP. Facts are neither solicited, understood, nor
appreciated.
Korbin Dallas
They do that because they don't want you to listen and the system is up
and running...
--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.
Cmd Buzz Corey
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:44:33 +0000, Steve Stone wrote:
>
>
>>>But the truth remains, that cell phones often are not capable of
>>>providing all the communications needed. If they aren't knocked out,
>>>then the cell sites are overloaded with every cell user attempting to
>>>make a call.
>>>
>>
>>And that is why montioring the PD on my scanner most of the radio comms
>>start with " Call me on your NEXTEL"
>
>
> They do that because they don't want you to listen and the system is up
> and running...
>
>
>
or overloaded. Sheesh.
gran...@yahoo.com
Caveat Lector
URL:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121744,00.asp
--
CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be !
b.b.
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: "Jim Hampton" on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 23:58
>
> >"b.b." <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> Jim Hampton wrote:
> >> > From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
> >> > one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
> >>
> >> A false assumption promoted by Steve Robeson, K4YZ.
> >>
> >> Of course, the cell phone is more widely available to the public than
> >> your amateur radio. The cell phone may keep working just fine in
> >> personal or small emergencies. The cell phone often works during the
> >> initial stages of a larger emergency. In other words, the cell phone
> >> can be extremely useful.
>
> That's HERESY in this newsgroup! :-)
Welp, that's just the way it is. Not everyone is able to walk around
with their very own amateur radio communicator at their side.
> In this morning's Los Angeles TIMES, page one, is a story on
> the London bombings stating that the estimated number of
> cell phones in the USA is 192 MILLION now and about a third
> of them have video capability. Network news on TV showed many
> short video clips from the immediate disaster areas in London.
They didn't weight for a bunch of overwait ATVers to show up and do
damage assessments? What's the state of emergency comms coming to?
> I have yet to see any TV news talking about "amateur radio
> emergency communications" in the London area. <shrug>
Jims says the bus was underground and amateur comms would work. Not
even CW.
> No doubt someone in here will insist that all the video clips
> are "fakes" because "everyone knows that cell phones go down
> in any emergency." :-)
Doesn't everyone know that?
> >> Jim, rely on no SINGLE form of communications. Always have a back-up
> >> plan.
> >
> >You are correct; one cannot count on any one form of communications. Cell
> >phones are *great* in a personal situation; I cannot imagine a more useful
> >form of communications. The larger the area impacted, the more you need to
> >rely on something that can communicate outside of the affected area.
>
> We can always count on the Amateur Emergency Corps to come
> through with "CW" and the johnny-on-the-spot morsemen.
I thought I saw a few frames of a guy in a CAP flight suit...
> >When 911 hit, however, things were a bit different. I was on AT&T and I
> >lost my ISP for a week despite being over 300 miles away from NYC. Of
> >course, the normal phones and cell phones worked (in Rochester) normally.
> >AT&T had a major network in NYC and their service was affected considerably.
>
> AT&T divestiture was some time ago...:-)
>
> "9/11" (the attack on the World Trade Center) was 4 years ago.
> NYC government communications managed to work through despite
> considerable damage to lower Manhattan Borough. <shrug> Area
> of damage was only a few square miles. You were 300 miles away?
I recall AOL not connecting me a few years before Jim's complaint.
> The 1994 Northridge Earthquake was 11 years ago. I was IN it.
> Area affected was roughly 400 square miles. TOTAL primary
> electrical power was CUT OFF for about 10 million population.
> LA and surrounding incorporated city communications continued
> to function, local utilities' communications continued to
> function despite loss of primary electrical supply.
> Conspicuously absent was amateur emergency communications
> which arrived (for health and welfare messaging) AFTER the
> FEMA fly-away-terminals arrived and were functioning. I don't
> know if the cell phones "all went down" since I didn't have
> one then...but the wired telephones worked fine after the
> first two hours of subscriber panic was over.
Panic is the primary problem in emergencies.
> BTW, the cell sites in the L.A. area are equipped with back-
> up power in case the primary electricity goes out. Central
> offices have had battery back-up since the year dot. AM
> and FM broadcast stations had emergency power generators and
> were functioning okay even if the personnel were a bit shaky.
But they all used CW, right?
> In London and, earlier, Madrid, the government communications
> kept on going through bombings. Gosh, with the way so many in
> here talk, absolutely NOBODY but the hams had any comms at all!
> <shrug> BTW, Yurp has an even higher density of cell phones
> than the USA according to the L.A. TIMES story.
All those people without any comms at all?
> >It was copied from a diabetes group which is international in scope.
>
> Tektronix is international in 'scope.
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Leupold is international in scopes.
b.b.
Hi! Probably an Extra.
The act of getting the video out of the cell phone is the
communications.
Best of Luck next time, buzzed.
de...@bobdbob.com
an emergency communications context.
I guess the police still routinely monitor channel 9 just about
everywhere, but just about every square inch of North America is
covered by 2m repeaters, too. I can only remember one occasion when I
had to make an emergency call from the road. I didn't have a cell phone
or a CB handy, but I did have a 2m mobile, and I was able to get in
touch with a ham who called the police and fire departments for me. The
repeater was about 30 miles away, and the ham was 75 miles away, but
the state police are local everywhere.
I don't think ham radio has become irrelevant as a result of a few
other services backing them up. You don't see too many CB'ers or cell
phone enthusiasts conducting SETs or training with paramedics.
You can't count on hams to tell you where the speed traps are either.
Caveat Lector
<de...@bobdbob.com> wrote in message
news:1120931022.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about CB in
> an emergency communications context.
Have a look at
Jim Hampton
Actually, a lot has to do with the population density of a given area.
I suspect cb is much more useful in sparsely populated areas as you will
find few repeaters and even fewer hams. Of course, everyone (myself
included) love to give opinions on what works based upon their local
situation. Human nature, I suspect ;)
b.b.
Caveat Lector wrote:
> Don't Count on Using Your Cell Phone for Disaster Rescue
> URL:
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121744,00.asp
"""
"If attacks similar to those that occurred earlier Thursday in London
happened in the United States, most cell phone users would have trouble
getting emergency crews to find them, according to experts."
"""
Jim says radio doesn't work underground. Do the experts know something
that Jim doesn't know?
b.b.
gran...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What does the "Cmd" in "Cmd Buzz Corey" stand for?
What does "Buzz" stand for?
Scott in Baltimore
>
> I suspect cb is much more useful in sparsely populated areas as you will
> find few repeaters and even fewer hams. Of course, everyone (myself
> included) love to give opinions on what works based upon their local
> situation. Human nature, I suspect ;)
50 watts and a 5/8 wave antenna does real good on VHF.
A lot better then one would assume unless you've tried it.
It took me two months to realize that I could hit places on VHF
that one could only dream of on 27 MHz.
I still use my CB. I also use my 2 meter.
Now, if our Gov't would get on the WRC03 bandwagon...
Jim Hampton
"Scott in Baltimore" <sDcOoNtTtS_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wuSdnU_klN2...@comcast.com...
Hello, Scott
50 watts into a 5/8 wave would likely fetch you 80 or 100 miles (I'm
guessing here) on ssb or cw. You are starting to get into scatter a bit.
Of course, I suspect ssb stations (and cw) are very likely to be
horizontally polarized whilst fm is invariably vertical polarization. Using
the wrong polarization can result in a hefty loss.
Several hundred and a beam and you'd likely cover a couple of hundred miles
24/7 due to scatter. The signal won't be strong far out, but would be fine
on ssb or cw.
Of course, keeping the cb *and* the ham radio give you even more choices ;)
Scott in Baltimore
> guessing here) on ssb or cw. You are starting to get into scatter a bit.
> Of course, I suspect ssb stations (and cw) are very likely to be
> horizontally polarized whilst fm is invariably vertical polarization. Using
> the wrong polarization can result in a hefty loss.
>
> Several hundred and a beam and you'd likely cover a couple of hundred miles
> 24/7 due to scatter. The signal won't be strong far out, but would be fine
> on ssb or cw.
I can get more distance with 50 watts VHF-FM then I do with a 2x455 box on
27 MHz local. With conditions, 27 MHz will work wonders. With tropo, I've
worked 100 miles on VHF with the mobile antenna. With my portable 3 element
beam, I did almost 200 miles.
There is a guy in DC that works FM horizontal. I can tell he's in there when
I'm vertical. Since I can flip my beam 90 degrees, I can work him horizontal.
What a difference 20db can make!
> Of course, keeping the cb *and* the ham radio give you even more choices ;)
Nothing like 19 on the highway, when the drivers aren't cussing too much.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: "Jim Hampton" on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 23:58
>> >"b.b." <billybee...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >> Jim Hampton wrote:
> >> > From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
> >> > one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
>> >> Of course, the cell phone is more widely available to the public than
>> >> your amateur radio. The cell phone may keep working just fine in
>> >> personal or small emergencies. The cell phone often works during the
>> >> initial stages of a larger emergency. In other words, the cell phone
>> >> can be extremely useful.
Latest estimate in the Los Angeles TIMES of Saturday morning
(9 Jul 05) has OVER 175 MILLION cell phones among the USA
public. There are now MORE cell phone subscribers than there
are wired-line phone subscribers!
>Welp, that's just the way it is. Not everyone is able to walk around
>with their very own amateur radio communicator at their side.
A few previous PCTA extra stalwarts in here (now gone) used
to talk about "shack on a belt" denigration of HTs. :-)
>> In this morning's Los Angeles TIMES, page one, is a story on
>> the London bombings stating that the estimated number of
>> cell phones in the USA is 192 MILLION now and about a third
>> of them have video capability. Network news on TV showed many
>> short video clips from the immediate disaster areas in London.
>
>They didn't weight for a bunch of overwait ATVers to show up and do
>damage assessments? What's the state of emergency comms coming to?
I'm still waiting to see what sort of Creative Writing the
ARRL is going to put on their "news" web page where ham
radio "went to the rescue in London" etc., etc. So far, the
network news and services have been mum on ham radio used in
this latest emergency over there.
>> I have yet to see any TV news talking about "amateur radio
>> emergency communications" in the London area. <shrug>
>
>Jims says the bus was underground and amateur comms would work. Not
>even CW.
No?!? Gosh, kinda puts the lie to "CW gets through when
nothing else will..." :-)
Ackshully, there's such a thing as a "leaky wave antenna"
that is used in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels, the Los Angeles
Subway (yes, I know, strange concept that) system, and many
other places. With the right shaping and dimensions, a tunnel
can be a sort of waveguide above cutoff for high VHF and up.
>> No doubt someone in here will insist that all the video clips
>> are "fakes" because "everyone knows that cell phones go down
>> in any emergency." :-)
>
>Doesn't everyone know that?
Stebie might say it's a "LIE!" but then he says lots and lots of
things are "LIES!" :-)
>> We can always count on the Amateur Emergency Corps to come
>> through with "CW" and the johnny-on-the-spot morsemen.
>
>I thought I saw a few frames of a guy in a CAP flight suit...
With a moustache? :-)
Not to worry...in a couple years Stebie will be claiming He
Was There (with/without MARS).
>> BTW, the cell sites in the L.A. area are equipped with back-
>> up power in case the primary electricity goes out. Central
>> offices have had battery back-up since the year dot. AM
>> and FM broadcast stations had emergency power generators and
>> were functioning okay even if the personnel were a bit shaky.
>
>But they all used CW, right?
Yes, to most of them! "Continuous Wave" carrier with FM. :-)
>> In London and, earlier, Madrid, the government communications
>> kept on going through bombings. Gosh, with the way so many in
>> here talk, absolutely NOBODY but the hams had any comms at all!
>> <shrug> BTW, Yurp has an even higher density of cell phones
>> than the USA according to the L.A. TIMES story.
>
>All those people without any comms at all?
Yup...according to the MYTH in here. Whenever an emergency hits,
"ALL the infrastructure GOES DOWN, quits, becomes defunct, won't
work at all! The only thing that works is the radio amateur's
mighty morsemachine radio!"
Talk about peyote puffing...those mythmakers are dreaming harder
than ever...:-)
bit bit
LenAn...@ieee.org
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
>
>
> Ahh, but if you have certain very closely guarded codes, you can
> get right through. Hams are still in denial that they stopped being
> relevant a couple decades ago, but it is understandable that obese
> old white men still want to hang on to memories of years gone by
> and 80 lbs. ago. Truth is, go to any hamfest. The nachos and cheese
> sell faster than cell phones. Yuk, those dried cheese stains you see
> at hamfests always gross me out. CB radios are far more useful
> in emergencies.
heh. try telling that to any EOC office in any county in the US. you'll be
laughed right out of the office and probably hounded right to your car as
someone who needs to go back to school.
you haven't been listening much on 11 meters of late, have you. its still
filled with yahoo's of every description and there are nutcases on there
that won't give a rats ass if you are in a life threatening situation.
they'll just key right over you until you die.
by contrast, the amateur radio community has some well trained people (that
training is provided at classes offered by officials of those very same EOC
offices). if you call in an emergency on the ham bands, you are certain to
get some useful help, even if it comes in the form of an old man or a young
kid sitting at the other end of a multi-hundred mile linkup (it has
happened before).
also, contrary to what you might believe, most of the phone systems aren't
designed to have everyone in America on at the same time (which will most
certainly be the case in a natural disaster or a man made one). regardless
of the "codes" you speak of, if the system is busy, its busy and NOTHING
you can do will get your call through any faster (and you'll just tie
things up that much harder for someone with a real emergency anyway).
just because you don't like hams, doesn't give you the right to trash the
services they offer, WITHOUT PAY and often at their own expense. can the
same be said for the typical cb operator (without any formal training)? I
say: NAY!
besides, the last ham fest I was at (williams Az), there were a lot of young
and old hams there and not many of them would even match your description.
of course, we only have your words on what they appeared (at least to you).
what the hey. you must need a white cane and dark glasses (you certainly
sound blind to the truth to me).
--
DE N7ZZT
Eric Oyen
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: n7zzt(at)hotmail(dot)com
the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Frank Gilliland
<n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <06pAe.31737$up5.2821@lakeread02>:
>Kenny wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ahh, but if you have certain very closely guarded codes, you can
>> get right through. Hams are still in denial that they stopped being
>> relevant a couple decades ago, but it is understandable that obese
>> old white men still want to hang on to memories of years gone by
>> and 80 lbs. ago. Truth is, go to any hamfest. The nachos and cheese
>> sell faster than cell phones. Yuk, those dried cheese stains you see
>> at hamfests always gross me out. CB radios are far more useful
>> in emergencies.
>
>heh. try telling that to any EOC office in any county in the US. you'll be
>laughed right out of the office and probably hounded right to your car as
>someone who needs to go back to school.
I know of no emergency service agency that would so quickly dismiss
the potential of CB radio.
>you haven't been listening much on 11 meters of late, have you. its still
>filled with yahoo's of every description and there are nutcases on there
>that won't give a rats ass if you are in a life threatening situation.
>they'll just key right over you until you die.
Sounds like what was said about the people of NYC before 9/11.
>by contrast, the amateur radio community has some well trained people (that
>training is provided at classes offered by officials of those very same EOC
>offices). if you call in an emergency on the ham bands, you are certain to
>get some useful help, even if it comes in the form of an old man or a young
>kid sitting at the other end of a multi-hundred mile linkup (it has
>happened before).
Do the math: According to info on the net there are about 650,000 hams
out of roughly 300,000,000 people in the US. So each ham must be able
to handle emergency traffic for 461 people, assuming every station is
willing and able to operate during an emergency. But that isn't the
case. So just to make the numbers a little more realistic, let's say
that only one out of every five hams can be up and running off the
grid (assuming all the hams in the zone survive the disaster). The new
ratio is 2300 people per ham. Now how many people know (or can find
out) where their local ham resides? Not many, I'm sure. Let's say one
out of ten. So that ham isn't much help unless the station is mobile.
How many hams are mobile? Oh heck, let's just say half (and that's
being generous). So there needs to be -two- hams for -4600- people;
the base-bound ham handles 460 people while the mobile ham has to
drive around looking for the other 4000+ potential victims of the
disaster. Now.... are there at least 65,000 hams in the US that are
both trained and capable to handle emergency communications for over
4000 people? Nope. I doubt there are -ANY- hams capable of handling
that kind of traffic.
And historically, what do hams -really- do during a disaster? Some
establish comm nets that are rarely used, while others take advantage
of the opportunity to make "disaster-zone QSLs". That's about it.
In contrast: There are -way- more CB radios than ham radios; Most CB
radios are mobile; Many CBers have more than one radio, and extra
radios can be quickly installed in a vehicle; CB radio is a popular
mode of communication with 4-wheelers, and 4x4's come in mighty handy
in many types of emergencies; Most CB antennas are easy to spot even
by non-CBers; CB radios are readily available to emergency services;
CB radios are insanely easy to operate; etc, etc, etc. And believe it
or not, CBers can and do organize quickly and behave appropriately
during an emergency, a fact which has been proven many, many times.
But ham radio -does- have a place in emergency communications -- as a
communications infrastructure backup for extreme situations such as a
nuclear holocaust, a large asteroid impact, a super-volanic eruption,
or some other calamity that may happen on a continental or planetary
scale. Until that happens, hams will just have to learn to live with
the fact that, since the early 70's, CB radio has played a much larger
role in disaster communication than ham radio, and will continue to do
so in the future.
>also, contrary to what you might believe, most of the phone systems aren't
>designed to have everyone in America on at the same time (which will most
>certainly be the case in a natural disaster or a man made one). regardless
>of the "codes" you speak of, if the system is busy, its busy and NOTHING
>you can do will get your call through any faster (and you'll just tie
>things up that much harder for someone with a real emergency anyway).
The point is moot; land lines are usually dead when the grid goes
down.
>just because you don't like hams, doesn't give you the right to trash the
>services they offer, WITHOUT PAY and often at their own expense. can the
>same be said for the typical cb operator (without any formal training)? I
>say: NAY!
Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
said for ham radio.
>besides, the last ham fest I was at (williams Az), there were a lot of young
>and old hams there and not many of them would even match your description.
Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
Republican.
>of course, we only have your words on what they appeared (at least to you).
>what the hey. you must need a white cane and dark glasses (you certainly
>sound blind to the truth to me).
How is your CW coming along, Eric?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Frank Gilliland
>Kenny wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ahh, but if you have certain very closely guarded codes, you can
>> get right through. Hams are still in denial that they stopped being
>> relevant a couple decades ago, but it is understandable that obese
>> old white men still want to hang on to memories of years gone by
>> and 80 lbs. ago. Truth is, go to any hamfest. The nachos and cheese
>> sell faster than cell phones. Yuk, those dried cheese stains you see
>> at hamfests always gross me out. CB radios are far more useful
>> in emergencies.
>
>heh. try telling that to any EOC office in any county in the US. you'll be
>laughed right out of the office and probably hounded right to your car as
>someone who needs to go back to school.
I know of no emergency service agency that would so quickly dismiss
the potential of CB radio.
>you haven't been listening much on 11 meters of late, have you. its still
>filled with yahoo's of every description and there are nutcases on there
>that won't give a rats ass if you are in a life threatening situation.
>they'll just key right over you until you die.
Sounds like what was said about the people of NYC before 9/11.
>by contrast, the amateur radio community has some well trained people (that
>training is provided at classes offered by officials of those very same EOC
>offices). if you call in an emergency on the ham bands, you are certain to
>get some useful help, even if it comes in the form of an old man or a young
>kid sitting at the other end of a multi-hundred mile linkup (it has
>happened before).
>also, contrary to what you might believe, most of the phone systems aren't
>designed to have everyone in America on at the same time (which will most
>certainly be the case in a natural disaster or a man made one). regardless
>of the "codes" you speak of, if the system is busy, its busy and NOTHING
>you can do will get your call through any faster (and you'll just tie
>things up that much harder for someone with a real emergency anyway).
The point is moot; land lines are usually dead when the grid goes
down.
>just because you don't like hams, doesn't give you the right to trash the
>services they offer, WITHOUT PAY and often at their own expense. can the
>same be said for the typical cb operator (without any formal training)? I
>say: NAY!
Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
said for ham radio.
>besides, the last ham fest I was at (williams Az), there were a lot of young
>and old hams there and not many of them would even match your description.
Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
Republican.
>of course, we only have your words on what they appeared (at least to you).
>what the hey. you must need a white cane and dark glasses (you certainly
>sound blind to the truth to me).
Dan/W4NTI
"N7ZZT - Eric Oyen" <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:06pAe.31737$up5.2821@lakeread02...
Good job and slapping of the troll was a worthy read.
Talking of doing work for NO PAY, and BTW very very little recognition.
Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in saving
lives and fortune.
And guess what? Ain't no one said a good thing yet. Amazing.
But that's alright. We don't do it for the fame and fortune. It's just the
right thing to do.
Dan/W4NTI
Frank Gilliland
<w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
<7owAe.8370$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
<snip>
>Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in saving
>lives and fortune.
How? What was their "major role"?
Dan/W4NTI
"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
news:cv75d1h8agaprv78t...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:38:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
> <w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
> <7owAe.8370$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>
> <snip>
>>Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>>Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in saving
>>lives and fortune.
>
>
> How? What was their "major role"?
>
>
between the State Headquarter EOC (Emergency Operations Center) to all
other local EOC's in the State of Alabama.
We provided logistic support concerning deployment of personnel to affected
area's and kept accurate information on various storm shelters around the
state.
We also provided inter-agency communications at a local and county level,
as required by the local on the scene commander.
This is but a small sample.
Dan/W4NTI
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:21:31 -0700, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
> <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <06pAe.31737$up5.2821@lakeread02>:
>
>>Kenny wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ahh, but if you have certain very closely guarded codes, you can
>>> get right through. Hams are still in denial that they stopped being
>>> relevant a couple decades ago, but it is understandable that obese
>>> old white men still want to hang on to memories of years gone by
>>> and 80 lbs. ago. Truth is, go to any hamfest. The nachos and cheese
>>> sell faster than cell phones. Yuk, those dried cheese stains you see
>>> at hamfests always gross me out. CB radios are far more useful
>>> in emergencies.
>>
>>heh. try telling that to any EOC office in any county in the US. you'll be
>>laughed right out of the office and probably hounded right to your car as
>>someone who needs to go back to school.
>
>
> I know of no emergency service agency that would so quickly dismiss
> the potential of CB radio.
really? have you even asked?
just for your info, I did here at the MCEOC. from what they told me, they
don't consider the "chicken band" to be of any use in a real emergency. too
many untrained idiots to have to manage was their words on the subject.
>
>
>>you haven't been listening much on 11 meters of late, have you. its still
>>filled with yahoo's of every description and there are nutcases on there
>>that won't give a rats ass if you are in a life threatening situation.
>>they'll just key right over you until you die.
>
>
> Sounds like what was said about the people of NYC before 9/11.
again, thats real funny. I heard lots of reports of hams getting involved
and helping out. I did not hear even one report in any of the news media
regarding cb operators at all. care to site a source that I can verify?
>
>
>>by contrast, the amateur radio community has some well trained people
>>(that training is provided at classes offered by officials of those very
>>same EOC offices). if you call in an emergency on the ham bands, you are
>>certain to get some useful help, even if it comes in the form of an old
>>man or a young kid sitting at the other end of a multi-hundred mile linkup
>>(it has happened before).
>
>
> Do the math: According to info on the net there are about 650,000 hams
> out of roughly 300,000,000 people in the US. So each ham must be able
> to handle emergency traffic for 461 people, assuming every station is
> willing and able to operate during an emergency. But that isn't the
> case. So just to make the numbers a little more realistic, let's say
> that only one out of every five hams can be up and running off the
> grid (assuming all the hams in the zone survive the disaster). The new
> ratio is 2300 people per ham. Now how many people know (or can find
> out) where their local ham resides? Not many, I'm sure. Let's say one
> out of ten. So that ham isn't much help unless the station is mobile.
> How many hams are mobile? Oh heck, let's just say half (and that's
> being generous). So there needs to be -two- hams for -4600- people;
> the base-bound ham handles 460 people while the mobile ham has to
> drive around looking for the other 4000+ potential victims of the
> disaster. Now.... are there at least 65,000 hams in the US that are
> both trained and capable to handle emergency communications for over
> 4000 people? Nope. I doubt there are -ANY- hams capable of handling
> that kind of traffic.
your math is flawed..... 1 ham for every 461 people would only occur IF (and
only if) the entire nation were attacked en-masse by either biologics or
nuclear means (and by then, the telco infrastructure would have long since
been disabled). Besides, I have done emergency comms work before and have
handled upwards of 200+ communications per hour (such comms include name,
address, type of info, its priority, etc). thats an avg of 3 communications
per second (and a human can handle this quite easily - case in point: air
traffic controllers). point is, the type of disaster that would take out
everything (your scenario) just doesn't have any real basis in reality
currently. now it might down the road, but your "just suppose" take on this
is just not relevant.
>
> And historically, what do hams -really- do during a disaster? Some
> establish comm nets that are rarely used, while others take advantage
> of the opportunity to make "disaster-zone QSLs". That's about it.
BULLSHIT.
recent fires in Arizona would prove you wrong. hams were passing a majority
of both the emergency and health/welfare traffic in and out of the fire
areas, as well as acting as coordinators for several emergency zones within
less than 100 miles of each other (it can be a real PITA to have someone
dispatching a plane to one area only to have someone else dispatch the same
plane elsewhere at the same time).
>
> In contrast: There are -way- more CB radios than ham radios; Most CB
> radios are mobile; Many CBers have more than one radio, and extra
> radios can be quickly installed in a vehicle; CB radio is a popular
> mode of communication with 4-wheelers, and 4x4's come in mighty handy
> in many types of emergencies; Most CB antennas are easy to spot even
> by non-CBers; CB radios are readily available to emergency services;
> CB radios are insanely easy to operate; etc, etc, etc. And believe it
> or not, CBers can and do organize quickly and behave appropriately
> during an emergency, a fact which has been proven many, many times.
quantity is not quality. just because there are more, doesn't mean they are
any more useful. in fact, the average CB operator doesn't have even the
minimal training required to handle emergency communications where lives
might be at stake. couple that with all the idiot operators on the band who
would just as soon key over any traffic (hence "AUDIOOOOOO" or "HAMMER!")
as pay attention. I witness this time and again on local chan 19 down by
the truck stop (located some 5 miles south of me). you are lucky if you can
get a word in edgewise and god help you if you had a real emergency! I
could always record some of this "noise" save it as an mp3 and post it here
for all to hear as a typical morning on chan 19.
>
> But ham radio -does- have a place in emergency communications -- as a
> communications infrastructure backup for extreme situations such as a
> nuclear holocaust, a large asteroid impact, a super-volanic eruption,
> or some other calamity that may happen on a continental or planetary
> scale. Until that happens, hams will just have to learn to live with
> the fact that, since the early 70's, CB radio has played a much larger
> role in disaster communication than ham radio, and will continue to do
> so in the future.
yes. radio does have that purpose (an infrastructure backup) and only when
*trained* people are at the mic does it work effectively. how many people
do you know of that have worked CB during an emergency situation that have
been taken seriously by any EOC? so far, I can't find any real reports of
any, other than those "numerous and conflicting reports" that never pan out
as factual. again, I require you cite me some factual sources that can be
verified.
>
>
>>also, contrary to what you might believe, most of the phone systems aren't
>>designed to have everyone in America on at the same time (which will most
>>certainly be the case in a natural disaster or a man made one). regardless
>>of the "codes" you speak of, if the system is busy, its busy and NOTHING
>>you can do will get your call through any faster (and you'll just tie
>>things up that much harder for someone with a real emergency anyway).
>
>
> The point is moot; land lines are usually dead when the grid goes
> down.
WRONG. land lines have their own emergency backup power (the same cannot be
said for most cellular towers which often die due to load and cheap backup
supplies. the telco system (hard land lines) run on a 48 volt system that
is backed up at multiple locationsusing batteroes (batteries that are 2
volts each setup in series and capable of delivering several thousands
aperes each). these backup supplies are usually located in central offices
which are distributed throughout the area and cross connected to offer
redundant capability (lose one co, and you have 3 others to take up the
slack). I may not be a telcom engineer, but I know a fair number of them
personally, so asking this type of question wasn't hard.
>
>
>>just because you don't like hams, doesn't give you the right to trash the
>>services they offer, WITHOUT PAY and often at their own expense. can the
>>same be said for the typical cb operator (without any formal training)? I
>>say: NAY!
>
>
> Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
> selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
> said for ham radio.
again, BULLSHIT. I have never heard any ham operator charge for his
services. in fact, it is a violation of part 97 if he tries (and also
several other regulations and a few laws).
>
>
>>besides, the last ham fest I was at (williams Az), there were a lot of
>>young and old hams there and not many of them would even match your
>>description.
>
>
> Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
> carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
> dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
> Republican.
oh really? and what facts do you base this low opinion on? I think the only
arrogant, elitist SOB here is you. you have offered no facts, you have
argued on baseless points and yet you still cannot accept the fact that you
are wrong. you are just arguing to be arguing.
>
>
>>of course, we only have your words on what they appeared (at least to
>>you). what the hey. you must need a white cane and dark glasses (you
>>certainly sound blind to the truth to me).
>
>
> How is your CW coming along, Eric?
the same could be asked for you.....
whether I decide to learn CW or not is not relevant to this discussion. just
because I didn't take that portion of the exam doesn't mean I don't know
it. besides, your entire argument with regards to this thread is:
_... .._ ._.. ._.. ... .... .. _
Frank Gilliland
<w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
<BoxAe.1826$oZ....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>
>"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
>news:cv75d1h8agaprv78t...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:38:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
>> <w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
>> <7owAe.8370$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>>>Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in saving
>>>lives and fortune.
>>
>>
>> How? What was their "major role"?
>>
>>
>I can only speak for us here in Bama. On HF we provided communication
>between the State Headquarter EOC (Emergency Operations Center) to all
>other local EOC's in the State of Alabama.
Don't they use landlines used for the primary comm and keep wireless
in standby for backup? And don't they have sat-phones? PSP repeaters?
>We provided logistic support concerning deployment of personnel to affected
>area's and kept accurate information on various storm shelters around the
>state.
Paperwork.
>We also provided inter-agency communications at a local and county level,
>as required by the local on the scene commander.
Most states already have those systems in place using the PSP. Your's
doesn't?
>This is but a small sample.
I don't see any "major role" or "life-saving" operations. I -do- see
an emergency communications system that's barely evolved from the days
of Marconi. Did you monitor any CB chatter? Hear any distress calls on
channel 9? I'm sure there were a few. Do you have a REACT group in
your area?
an_old_friend
de...@bobdbob.com wrote:
> I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about CB in
> an emergency communications context.
>
> I guess the police still routinely monitor channel 9 just about
> everywhere, but just about every square inch of North America is
> covered by 2m repeaters, too. I can only remember one occasion when I
sorry ole boy but you are overstateing things
> had to make an emergency call from the road. I didn't have a cell phone
> or a CB handy, but I did have a 2m mobile, and I was able to get in
> touch with a ham who called the police and fire departments for me. The
> repeater was about 30 miles away, and the ham was 75 miles away, but
> the state police are local everywhere.
all depends on wht you call local
Michael Coslo
Dan, wy don't you ask Frank what the CBer's did?
- Mike KB3EIA -
Frank Gilliland
<n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <FVxAe.31744$up5.3360@lakeread02>:
>Frank Gilliland wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:21:31 -0700, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
>> <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <06pAe.31737$up5.2821@lakeread02>:
>>
>>>Kenny wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahh, but if you have certain very closely guarded codes, you can
>>>> get right through. Hams are still in denial that they stopped being
>>>> relevant a couple decades ago, but it is understandable that obese
>>>> old white men still want to hang on to memories of years gone by
>>>> and 80 lbs. ago. Truth is, go to any hamfest. The nachos and cheese
>>>> sell faster than cell phones. Yuk, those dried cheese stains you see
>>>> at hamfests always gross me out. CB radios are far more useful
>>>> in emergencies.
>>>
>>>heh. try telling that to any EOC office in any county in the US. you'll be
>>>laughed right out of the office and probably hounded right to your car as
>>>someone who needs to go back to school.
>>
>>
>> I know of no emergency service agency that would so quickly dismiss
>> the potential of CB radio.
>
>really? have you even asked?
As a matter of fact I have. Haven't you ever heard of REACT?
>just for your info, I did here at the MCEOC. from what they told me, they
>don't consider the "chicken band" to be of any use in a real emergency. too
>many untrained idiots to have to manage was their words on the subject.
I guess it depends on your perspective. When the shit hits the fan,
the power and phones go down, and the only line of communication is
some redneck CBer driving around looking to help people in trouble, do
you think it's a good idea to wave him off and bleed to death while
waiting for a ham?
>>>you haven't been listening much on 11 meters of late, have you. its still
>>>filled with yahoo's of every description and there are nutcases on there
>>>that won't give a rats ass if you are in a life threatening situation.
>>>they'll just key right over you until you die.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like what was said about the people of NYC before 9/11.
>
>again, thats real funny. I heard lots of reports of hams getting involved
>and helping out. I did not hear even one report in any of the news media
>regarding cb operators at all. care to site a source that I can verify?
That was an analogy, Eric. People are people. Some of us may behave
poorly and irresponsibly when things are hunky-dory, but a disaster
usually brings out the best from even the worst of us. 9/11 proved
that on many levels, as did just about every major earthquake,
hurricane, or other disaster that has struck since civilization began.
It's a perfectly valid distribution sample. If a disaster zone affects
620,000 people, there will be about 1345 hams in that population
(assuming hams are evenly distributed throughout the population).
> Besides, I have done emergency comms work before and have
>handled upwards of 200+ communications per hour (such comms include name,
>address, type of info, its priority, etc). thats an avg of 3 communications
>per second (and a human can handle this quite easily - case in point: air
>traffic controllers).
Three "communications" per second? Hmmm.... I guess that depends on
how you define a "communication".
> point is, the type of disaster that would take out
>everything (your scenario)
No, that's -your- scenario.
> just doesn't have any real basis in reality
>currently. now it might down the road, but your "just suppose" take on this
>is just not relevant.
>
>>
>> And historically, what do hams -really- do during a disaster? Some
>> establish comm nets that are rarely used, while others take advantage
>> of the opportunity to make "disaster-zone QSLs". That's about it.
>
>BULLSHIT.
>
>recent fires in Arizona would prove you wrong. hams were passing a majority
>of both the emergency and health/welfare traffic in and out of the fire
>areas, as well as acting as coordinators for several emergency zones within
>less than 100 miles of each other (it can be a real PITA to have someone
>dispatching a plane to one area only to have someone else dispatch the same
>plane elsewhere at the same time).
Maybe you missed the point: I'm not saying hams are useless. If an
agency has the time and means to mobilize some hams to man some air
conditioned communication op-centers, great, I'm sure that happens
quite often. But you don't see too many of them in the trenches, which
is where the wars are fought. That's where you'll find the CBers
picking up the slack when the phone system doesn't work, when the PSP
is overloaded, and when pre-planned logistics aren't flexible enough
to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Happens all the time.
>> In contrast: There are -way- more CB radios than ham radios; Most CB
>> radios are mobile; Many CBers have more than one radio, and extra
>> radios can be quickly installed in a vehicle; CB radio is a popular
>> mode of communication with 4-wheelers, and 4x4's come in mighty handy
>> in many types of emergencies; Most CB antennas are easy to spot even
>> by non-CBers; CB radios are readily available to emergency services;
>> CB radios are insanely easy to operate; etc, etc, etc. And believe it
>> or not, CBers can and do organize quickly and behave appropriately
>> during an emergency, a fact which has been proven many, many times.
>
>quantity is not quality.
No, but it -is- quantity. You can have the best trained ham manning a
radio in the center of a disaster zone, but you =MUST= have mobile
comm within that zone. There simply aren't enough hams in any given
area to do that job. And CB radio is almost -ideal- for the task.
Wherever you are, there are lots of CBers already there, ready and
willing.
> just because there are more, doesn't mean they are
>any more useful.
It most certainly makes a difference when there is a need for a lot of
lines of communication. And CB radios allow neighborhoods and small
communities to take care of many problems by themselves, relieving the
burden on the emergency services and their communication networks.
> in fact, the average CB operator doesn't have even the
>minimal training required to handle emergency communications where lives
>might be at stake.
Hogwash. Almost every CBer knows that Channel 9 is for emergencies,
and most CBers already know how to communicate with their radio. The
only "training" needed is the ability to organize communications, but
that's why there's REACT. Even without REACT, it doesn't take any
intensive training to learn how to cooperate with others during an
emergency -- it happens whether people are trained for it or not.
> couple that with all the idiot operators on the band who
>would just as soon key over any traffic (hence "AUDIOOOOOO" or "HAMMER!")
>as pay attention.
Yeah, that happens all the time in disaster situations, especially on
channel 9......
> I witness this time and again on local chan 19 down by
>the truck stop (located some 5 miles south of me). you are lucky if you can
>get a word in edgewise and god help you if you had a real emergency!
Pay attention, Eric: Channel 9 is used for emergencies, not 19.
> I
>could always record some of this "noise" save it as an mp3 and post it here
>for all to hear as a typical morning on chan 19.
You go right ahead and record all this stuff while listening to
channel 9. Post it, as well as the time and location it was recorded.
>> But ham radio -does- have a place in emergency communications -- as a
>> communications infrastructure backup for extreme situations such as a
>> nuclear holocaust, a large asteroid impact, a super-volanic eruption,
>> or some other calamity that may happen on a continental or planetary
>> scale. Until that happens, hams will just have to learn to live with
>> the fact that, since the early 70's, CB radio has played a much larger
>> role in disaster communication than ham radio, and will continue to do
>> so in the future.
>
>yes. radio does have that purpose (an infrastructure backup) and only when
>*trained* people are at the mic does it work effectively. how many people
>do you know of that have worked CB during an emergency situation that have
>been taken seriously by any EOC?
Several.
> so far, I can't find any real reports of
>any, other than those "numerous and conflicting reports" that never pan out
>as factual. again, I require you cite me some factual sources that can be
>verified.
You "require me"? Get a life, Eric. Then get a CB radio and talk a
while with some of the folks on the band. You'll get your sources
there.
>>>also, contrary to what you might believe, most of the phone systems aren't
>>>designed to have everyone in America on at the same time (which will most
>>>certainly be the case in a natural disaster or a man made one). regardless
>>>of the "codes" you speak of, if the system is busy, its busy and NOTHING
>>>you can do will get your call through any faster (and you'll just tie
>>>things up that much harder for someone with a real emergency anyway).
>>
>>
>> The point is moot; land lines are usually dead when the grid goes
>> down.
>
>WRONG. land lines have their own emergency backup power (the same cannot be
>said for most cellular towers which often die due to load and cheap backup
>supplies. the telco system (hard land lines) run on a 48 volt system that
>is backed up at multiple locationsusing batteroes (batteries that are 2
>volts each setup in series and capable of delivering several thousands
>aperes each). these backup supplies are usually located in central offices
>which are distributed throughout the area and cross connected to offer
>redundant capability (lose one co, and you have 3 others to take up the
>slack). I may not be a telcom engineer, but I know a fair number of them
>personally, so asking this type of question wasn't hard.
You don't get it -- if the grid is down then it's down for a reason.
If it's not a transmission or generator plant failure, the reason is
usually because a number power lines are down. If the power lines are
down then the phone lines will probably also be down, and it doesn't
matter if the relay stations have backup power or not -- the phones
won't work. And BTW, most cell-phone towers have battery backups just
like telcom relay stations.
>>>just because you don't like hams, doesn't give you the right to trash the
>>>services they offer, WITHOUT PAY and often at their own expense. can the
>>>same be said for the typical cb operator (without any formal training)? I
>>>say: NAY!
>>
>>
>> Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
>> selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
>> said for ham radio.
>
>again, BULLSHIT. I have never heard any ham operator charge for his
>services. in fact, it is a violation of part 97 if he tries (and also
>several other regulations and a few laws).
It most certainly is against the law. Remember the Jim Jones suicide
cult? Maybe you should look at their radio activities with US hams
before they drank the kool-aid. I mention this as only one instance
because the magazine with the article was sitting on the top of the
pile on my desk. There have been many other instances.
>>>besides, the last ham fest I was at (williams Az), there were a lot of
>>>young and old hams there and not many of them would even match your
>>>description.
>>
>>
>> Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
>> carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
>> dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
>> Republican.
>
>oh really? and what facts do you base this low opinion on? I think the only
>arrogant, elitist SOB here is you. you have offered no facts, you have
>argued on baseless points and yet you still cannot accept the fact that you
>are wrong. you are just arguing to be arguing.
Three "communications" per second?
>>>of course, we only have your words on what they appeared (at least to
>>>you). what the hey. you must need a white cane and dark glasses (you
>>>certainly sound blind to the truth to me).
>>
>>
>> How is your CW coming along, Eric?
>
>
>the same could be asked for you.....
>whether I decide to learn CW or not is not relevant to this discussion. just
>because I didn't take that portion of the exam doesn't mean I don't know
>it. besides, your entire argument with regards to this thread is:
>_... .._ ._.. ._.. ... .... .. _
Still can't hack the code, huh? LOL!
Frank Gilliland
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
<daue47$fgu$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
<snip>
> Dan, wy don't you ask Frank what the CBer's did?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
Why ask me? I wasn't there. And why don't you ask them yourself?
Michael Coslo
Frank Gilliland wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:47:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
> <w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
> <BoxAe.1826$oZ....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>
>
>>"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
>>news:cv75d1h8agaprv78t...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:38:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
>>><w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
>>><7owAe.8370$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>>>>Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in saving
>>>>lives and fortune.
>>>
>>>
>>>How? What was their "major role"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I can only speak for us here in Bama. On HF we provided communication
>>between the State Headquarter EOC (Emergency Operations Center) to all
>>other local EOC's in the State of Alabama.
>
>
>
> Don't they use landlines used for the primary comm and keep wireless
> in standby for backup? And don't they have sat-phones? PSP repeaters?
Apparently not always.
>>We provided logistic support concerning deployment of personnel to affected
>>area's and kept accurate information on various storm shelters around the
>>state.
>
>
> Paperwork.
I suppose that you're saying that isn't important?
>
>
>>We also provided inter-agency communications at a local and county level,
>>as required by the local on the scene commander.
>
>
>
> Most states already have those systems in place using the PSP. Your's
> doesn't?
>
>
>
>>This is but a small sample.
>
>
>
> I don't see any "major role" or "life-saving" operations.
I see that life saviing operations is in quotes. where did Dan write
that? He told ya what they did. EOC's appreciate it, even if you don't.
> I -do- see
> an emergency communications system that's barely evolved from the days
> of Marconi.
Umm, that is what the comms are all about. The highly evolved stuf
tends to go away when disaster hits.
Did you monitor any CB chatter? Hear any distress calls on
> channel 9? I'm sure there were a few. Do you have a REACT group in
> your area?
>
Tell us about REACT........
As far as I can see, a lot of them *are* Hams, and they provide
services in the same way. If'n you don't like the Hams, ya don't like
REACT either.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Michael Coslo
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Exceptionally poor analogy. Why don't you go stand in Time Square and
make your analogy?
> People are people. Some of us may behave
> poorly and irresponsibly when things are hunky-dory, but a disaster
> usually brings out the best from even the worst of us.
And sometimes not, but that's all beside the point.
No, sorry, it isn't. If it was, the same distribution would hold
regarding professional EOC communicators, or REACT members, or whoever.
Just as a point of interest, you write of some apparent necessity for
stations to be mobile. How many mobile stations are going to be in use
during a major hurricane? Are we supposed to head out in our pickups,
tuned to channel 9, and cruise up and down the beach as the storm surge
comes in?
That might be the job of the police and other highly trained emergency
workers, but not us.
What do you see emergency comms as anyhow?
>
>
>>Besides, I have done emergency comms work before and have
>>handled upwards of 200+ communications per hour (such comms include name,
>>address, type of info, its priority, etc). thats an avg of 3 communications
>>per second (and a human can handle this quite easily - case in point: air
>>traffic controllers).
>
>
>
> Three "communications" per second? Hmmm.... I guess that depends on
> how you define a "communication".
>
>
>
>>point is, the type of disaster that would take out
>>everything (your scenario)
>
>
>
> No, that's -your- scenario.
>
>
>
>>just doesn't have any real basis in reality
>>currently. now it might down the road, but your "just suppose" take on this
>>is just not relevant.
>>
>>
>>>And historically, what do hams -really- do during a disaster? Some
>>>establish comm nets that are rarely used, while others take advantage
>>>of the opportunity to make "disaster-zone QSLs". That's about it.
>>
>>BULLSHIT.
>>
>>recent fires in Arizona would prove you wrong. hams were passing a majority
>>of both the emergency and health/welfare traffic in and out of the fire
>>areas, as well as acting as coordinators for several emergency zones within
>>less than 100 miles of each other (it can be a real PITA to have someone
>>dispatching a plane to one area only to have someone else dispatch the same
>>plane elsewhere at the same time).
>
>
>
> Maybe you missed the point: I'm not saying hams are useless.
You wrote:
**And historically, what do hams -really- do during a disaster? Some
**establish comm nets that are rarely used, while others take advantage
**of the opportunity to make "disaster-zone QSLs". That's about it.
and
**Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
**selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
**said for ham radio
**Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
**carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
**dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
**Republican.
hmmmm...
> If an
> agency has the time and means to mobilize some hams to man some air
> conditioned communication op-centers, great, I'm sure that happens
> quite often. But you don't see too many of them in the trenches, which
> is where the wars are fought. That's where you'll find the CBers
> picking up the slack when the phone system doesn't work, when the PSP
> is overloaded, and when pre-planned logistics aren't flexible enough
> to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Happens all the time.
Have any news releases?
>>>In contrast: There are -way- more CB radios than ham radios; Most CB
>>>radios are mobile; Many CBers have more than one radio, and extra
>>>radios can be quickly installed in a vehicle; CB radio is a popular
>>>mode of communication with 4-wheelers, and 4x4's come in mighty handy
>>>in many types of emergencies; Most CB antennas are easy to spot even
>>>by non-CBers; CB radios are readily available to emergency services;
>>>CB radios are insanely easy to operate; etc, etc, etc. And believe it
>>>or not, CBers can and do organize quickly and behave appropriately
>>>during an emergency, a fact which has been proven many, many times.
>>
>>quantity is not quality.
>
>
>
> No, but it -is- quantity. You can have the best trained ham manning a
> radio in the center of a disaster zone, but you =MUST= have mobile
> comm within that zone. There simply aren't enough hams in any given
> area to do that job. And CB radio is almost -ideal- for the task.
> Wherever you are, there are lots of CBers already there, ready and
> willing.
SO these CB'ers are manning emergency comms right in the middle of the
disaster area? Seems we would hear more about it.
>
>
>>just because there are more, doesn't mean they are
>>any more useful.
>
>
>
> It most certainly makes a difference when there is a need for a lot of
> lines of communication. And CB radios allow neighborhoods and small
> communities to take care of many problems by themselves, relieving the
> burden on the emergency services and their communication networks.
>
>
>
>>in fact, the average CB operator doesn't have even the
>>minimal training required to handle emergency communications where lives
>>might be at stake.
>
>
>
> Hogwash. Almost every CBer knows that Channel 9 is for emergencies,
> and most CBers already know how to communicate with their radio. The
> only "training" needed is the ability to organize communications, but
> that's why there's REACT. Even without REACT, it doesn't take any
> intensive training to learn how to cooperate with others during an
> emergency -- it happens whether people are trained for it or not.
>
>
>
>>couple that with all the idiot operators on the band who
>>would just as soon key over any traffic (hence "AUDIOOOOOO" or "HAMMER!")
>>as pay attention.
>
>
>
> Yeah, that happens all the time in disaster situations, especially on
> channel 9......
>
>
>
>>I witness this time and again on local chan 19 down by
>>the truck stop (located some 5 miles south of me). you are lucky if you can
>>get a word in edgewise and god help you if you had a real emergency!
>
>
>
> Pay attention, Eric: Channel 9 is used for emergencies, not 19.
The truckers use 9 around here too.
>>I
>>could always record some of this "noise" save it as an mp3 and post it here
>>for all to hear as a typical morning on chan 19.
>
>
>
> You go right ahead and record all this stuff while listening to
> channel 9. Post it, as well as the time and location it was recorded.
>
>
>
>>>But ham radio -does- have a place in emergency communications -- as a
>>>communications infrastructure backup for extreme situations such as a
>>>nuclear holocaust, a large asteroid impact, a super-volanic eruption,
>>>or some other calamity that may happen on a continental or planetary
>>>scale. Until that happens, hams will just have to learn to live with
>>>the fact that, since the early 70's, CB radio has played a much larger
>>>role in disaster communication than ham radio, and will continue to do
>>>so in the future.
>>
>>yes. radio does have that purpose (an infrastructure backup) and only when
>>*trained* people are at the mic does it work effectively. how many people
>>do you know of that have worked CB during an emergency situation that have
>>been taken seriously by any EOC?
>
>
>
> Several.
Great, let us know where to find the documentation. BTW, I wen to the
REACT site, and they could do a better job of getting this news out.
>
>
>>so far, I can't find any real reports of
>>any, other than those "numerous and conflicting reports" that never pan out
>>as factual. again, I require you cite me some factual sources that can be
>>verified.
>
>
>
> You "require me"? Get a life, Eric. Then get a CB radio and talk a
> while with some of the folks on the band. You'll get your sources
> there.
I only ask. Requiring is a tad strong.
And as for getting a CB, I have one. I don't hear the things you write
of....
And after a little while, they go down.
Yeah, that is a little hard to believe. I'd like to see some
explanation of that.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Michael Coslo
Frank Gilliland wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:34:47 -0400, Michael Coslo
> <mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
> <daue47$fgu$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Dan, wy don't you ask Frank what the CBer's did?
>>
>> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>
>
> Why ask me? I wasn't there. And why don't you ask them yourself?
I went to the REACT site. Lots of stuff on training, and going to
conventions. Nothing much on actual operations. I note that they do use
Ham gear, so I suspect some of the members are Hams
And locally, I hear truck drivers, a few locals and skip occasionally.
None of which appear to have much to do with emergency comms.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Frank Gilliland
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
<dauk6g$16bg$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
I thought it was a pretty good analogy. In fact, it was a compliment
to the people of NYC. If you didn't read it that way then maybe you
should pull that corn cob out of your ass so you don't spaz whenever
someone mentions 9/11.
>> People are people. Some of us may behave
>> poorly and irresponsibly when things are hunky-dory, but a disaster
>> usually brings out the best from even the worst of us.
>
> And sometimes not, but that's all beside the point.
Then why mention it?
Hmmm.... did you flunk 5th grade math?
300,000,000 (number of people in US) / 650,000 (number of hams in US)
= 461.54 (people per ham)
> Just as a point of interest, you write of some apparent necessity for
>stations to be mobile. How many mobile stations are going to be in use
>during a major hurricane? Are we supposed to head out in our pickups,
>tuned to channel 9, and cruise up and down the beach as the storm surge
>comes in?
Depends on how stupid you are.
> That might be the job of the police and other highly trained emergency
>workers, but not us.
>
>
> What do you see emergency comms as anyhow?
There is plenty of warning for hurricanes these days, so there's
plenty of time to mobilize whatever resources that may be needed.
Regardless, you don't see too many hams out cruising the aftermath
looking for victims. Tornados give a much better picture on the use of
CB radios in an emergency. Haven't you ever seen "Twister"? Ever think
that there was a reason the writers chose to use CB radios instead of
ham radios in the movie?
Yep, that's pretty much all I hear on the box. If they are doing
anything more than occasional radio checks and net tests then maybe
they are using some sort of new 'stealth radio' technology.....?
>and
>
>**Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
>**selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
>**said for ham radio
So have -YOU- heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
selling CB operator services?
>**Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
>**carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
>**dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
>**Republican.
>
> hmmmm...
Careful.... wearing a yellow spotted shirt doesn't always disguise
those cheese stains.
>> If an
>> agency has the time and means to mobilize some hams to man some air
>> conditioned communication op-centers, great, I'm sure that happens
>> quite often. But you don't see too many of them in the trenches, which
>> is where the wars are fought. That's where you'll find the CBers
>> picking up the slack when the phone system doesn't work, when the PSP
>> is overloaded, and when pre-planned logistics aren't flexible enough
>> to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Happens all the time.
>
> Have any news releases?
Nope, just first-hand experience in three different disasters.
>>>>In contrast: There are -way- more CB radios than ham radios; Most CB
>>>>radios are mobile; Many CBers have more than one radio, and extra
>>>>radios can be quickly installed in a vehicle; CB radio is a popular
>>>>mode of communication with 4-wheelers, and 4x4's come in mighty handy
>>>>in many types of emergencies; Most CB antennas are easy to spot even
>>>>by non-CBers; CB radios are readily available to emergency services;
>>>>CB radios are insanely easy to operate; etc, etc, etc. And believe it
>>>>or not, CBers can and do organize quickly and behave appropriately
>>>>during an emergency, a fact which has been proven many, many times.
>>>
>>>quantity is not quality.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, but it -is- quantity. You can have the best trained ham manning a
>> radio in the center of a disaster zone, but you =MUST= have mobile
>> comm within that zone. There simply aren't enough hams in any given
>> area to do that job. And CB radio is almost -ideal- for the task.
>> Wherever you are, there are lots of CBers already there, ready and
>> willing.
>
>
> SO these CB'ers are manning emergency comms right in the middle of the
>disaster area? Seems we would hear more about it.
You probably would have had you ever been a CBer in the middle of a
disaster area.
First, channel 9 is designated an emergency channel by law; using it
for anything other than emergency comm is a violation of FCC regs.
Second, where's "here"? Dave Hall country? That doesn't suprise me.
>>>I
>>>could always record some of this "noise" save it as an mp3 and post it here
>>>for all to hear as a typical morning on chan 19.
>>
>>
>>
>> You go right ahead and record all this stuff while listening to
>> channel 9. Post it, as well as the time and location it was recorded.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>But ham radio -does- have a place in emergency communications -- as a
>>>>communications infrastructure backup for extreme situations such as a
>>>>nuclear holocaust, a large asteroid impact, a super-volanic eruption,
>>>>or some other calamity that may happen on a continental or planetary
>>>>scale. Until that happens, hams will just have to learn to live with
>>>>the fact that, since the early 70's, CB radio has played a much larger
>>>>role in disaster communication than ham radio, and will continue to do
>>>>so in the future.
>>>
>>>yes. radio does have that purpose (an infrastructure backup) and only when
>>>*trained* people are at the mic does it work effectively. how many people
>>>do you know of that have worked CB during an emergency situation that have
>>>been taken seriously by any EOC?
>>
>>
>>
>> Several.
>
>
> Great, let us know where to find the documentation. BTW, I wen to the
>REACT site, and they could do a better job of getting this news out.
I guess they don't toot their own horn as much as the hams do.
>>>so far, I can't find any real reports of
>>>any, other than those "numerous and conflicting reports" that never pan out
>>>as factual. again, I require you cite me some factual sources that can be
>>>verified.
>>
>>
>>
>> You "require me"? Get a life, Eric. Then get a CB radio and talk a
>> while with some of the folks on the band. You'll get your sources
>> there.
>
> I only ask. Requiring is a tad strong.
>
> And as for getting a CB, I have one. I don't hear the things you write
>of....
Your CB is a two-way radio, right? Ok then.
Yes they do. But they are usually overloaded before they fail.
So would I.
Frank Gilliland
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
<daugbb$fne$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
>
>
>Frank Gilliland wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:47:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
>> <w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
>> <BoxAe.1826$oZ....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>>
>>
>>>"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
>>>news:cv75d1h8agaprv78t...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:38:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
>>>><w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
>>>><7owAe.8370$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>>>>>Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in saving
>>>>>lives and fortune.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How? What was their "major role"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can only speak for us here in Bama. On HF we provided communication
>>>between the State Headquarter EOC (Emergency Operations Center) to all
>>>other local EOC's in the State of Alabama.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't they use landlines used for the primary comm and keep wireless
>> in standby for backup? And don't they have sat-phones? PSP repeaters?
>
> Apparently not always.
I suppose some of those states in the deep south might not have enough
spare change for a reliable comm system, but you'd think they could
shake down Uncle Sam for a federal grant or two considering all the
hurricanes they get down there.
>>>We provided logistic support concerning deployment of personnel to affected
>>>area's and kept accurate information on various storm shelters around the
>>>state.
>>
>>
>> Paperwork.
>
> I suppose that you're saying that isn't important?
No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to the topic -- paperwork might require
a trained chimp, but not necessarily a trained ham.
>>>We also provided inter-agency communications at a local and county level,
>>>as required by the local on the scene commander.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most states already have those systems in place using the PSP. Your's
>> doesn't?
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is but a small sample.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see any "major role" or "life-saving" operations.
>
> I see that life saviing operations is in quotes. where did Dan write
>that? He told ya what they did. EOC's appreciate it, even if you don't.
"The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana and
points further North played a major role in saving lives and fortune."
>> I -do- see
>> an emergency communications system that's barely evolved from the days
>> of Marconi.
>
> Umm, that is what the comms are all about. The highly evolved stuf
>tends to go away when disaster hits.
Thus rendering sat-comm useless, right?
> Did you monitor any CB chatter? Hear any distress calls on
>> channel 9? I'm sure there were a few. Do you have a REACT group in
>> your area?
>>
>
> Tell us about REACT........
>
> As far as I can see, a lot of them *are* Hams, and they provide
>services in the same way. If'n you don't like the Hams, ya don't like
>REACT either.
Gee, another armchair logician. First of all, I never said that I
don't like hams. Last time I checked, hams are people. Some people I
like and others I don't. I don't like hams who think that their ticket
gives them the right to take credit where credit isn't due (or deny
credit where it -is- due). I give hams credit for lots of things, and
I even encourage people to get their ticket if that's what interests
them. But I also recommend that they avoid the nacho cheese stands.
Frank Gilliland
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
<daukdn$16bi$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
What part of "ask" did you not understand?
Dan/W4NTI
"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:47:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
> <w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
> <BoxAe.1826$oZ....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>
>>
>>"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
>>news:cv75d1h8agaprv78t...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:38:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
>>> <w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
>>> <7owAe.8370$aY6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>Check out Hurricane Dennis. The hams in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
>>>>Georgia, Louisiana and points further North played a major role in
>>>>saving
>>>>lives and fortune.
>>>
>>>
>>> How? What was their "major role"?
>>>
>>>
>>I can only speak for us here in Bama. On HF we provided communication
>>between the State Headquarter EOC (Emergency Operations Center) to all
>>other local EOC's in the State of Alabama.
>
>
> Don't they use landlines used for the primary comm and keep wireless
> in standby for backup? And don't they have sat-phones? PSP repeaters?
>
ground, Sat phones break up. And I don't think we actually have Sat phones
BTW. Repeaters do not cover outside a local area. Hams are the
backups....get it?
>
>>We provided logistic support concerning deployment of personnel to
>>affected
>>area's and kept accurate information on various storm shelters around the
>>state.
>
>
> Paperwork.
>
Necessary communications.
>
>>We also provided inter-agency communications at a local and county level,
>>as required by the local on the scene commander.
>
>
> Most states already have those systems in place using the PSP. Your's
> doesn't?
>
You asked the question, I answered. If you can't handle the facts, it
ain't my fault.
>
>>This is but a small sample.
>
>
> I don't see any "major role" or "life-saving" operations. I -do- see
> an emergency communications system that's barely evolved from the days
> of Marconi. Did you monitor any CB chatter? Hear any distress calls on
> channel 9? I'm sure there were a few. Do you have a REACT group in
> your area?
>
Yes I did monitor the local "CB Chatter". I heard a guy yelling "Five
Pills, Five Pills" for hours on end. This was on channel 9.
Then I heard a local fire up his "Lineyear" and blow away the entire band.
Didn't manage to hear any emergency activity. Especially not from the
Emergency Management Folks.
Heard a lot of that on two meters tho.
Dan/W4NTI
Just tellin the truth, and you cain't stand it.
Dan/W4NTI
"Michael Coslo" <mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:daugbb$fne$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
I can see a definite value in using the 11 meter band, with its good ground
wave coverage.
In fact I have been wondering for years why I don't hear REACT anymore.
Guess all the "good CB ops" ran em off eh?
I can just imagine trying to get on Channel 9 in a emergency and asking one
of the "big boys" to standby.
Dan/W4NTI
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:18:25 -0400, Michael Coslo
><mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
>>Frank Gilliland wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:44 -0700, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
>>>>Frank Gilliland wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:21:31 -0700, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
>>>>>>Kenny wrote:
>>> It's a perfectly valid distribution sample. If a disaster zone affects
>>> 620,000 people, there will be about 1345 hams in that population
>>> (assuming hams are evenly distributed throughout the population).
>>
>> No, sorry, it isn't. If it was, the same distribution would hold
>>regarding professional EOC communicators, or REACT members, or whoever.
>
>Hmmm.... did you flunk 5th grade math?
>
>300,000,000 (number of people in US) / 650,000 (number of hams in US)
>= 461.54 (people per ham)
>
>> Just as a point of interest, you write of some apparent necessity for
>>stations to be mobile. How many mobile stations are going to be in use
>>during a major hurricane? Are we supposed to head out in our pickups,
>>tuned to channel 9, and cruise up and down the beach as the storm surge
>>comes in?
>
>Depends on how stupid you are.
Right now there are somewhere between 4 and 6 MILLION CB sets in
presumed operating condition in the USA.
Right now there are approximately 180 MILLION cell phones in the
USA; the number of cell subscribers has now exceeded the wired-
telephone subscibers.
There are at least a MILLION assorted PLMRS mobile radios in the
USA now, divided among public safety, railroad, utility, private
boat owners, businesses.
That's not counting the various mobile units operated by TV news
teams using a variety of modulations and relay facilities.
There's the Guard units in each state, all equipped with military
grade communications radios, some capable of working through the
rather private military satellites.
There's lots and lots of RADIO equipment out there that CAN work
(other than amateur and CB) and has been working right along,
just as it did 11 years ago in the '94 Northridge Earthquake.
>> That might be the job of the police and other highly trained emergency
>>workers, but not us.
>>
>> What do you see emergency comms as anyhow?
>
>There is plenty of warning for hurricanes these days, so there's
>plenty of time to mobilize whatever resources that may be needed.
>Regardless, you don't see too many hams out cruising the aftermath
>looking for victims. Tornados give a much better picture on the use of
>CB radios in an emergency. Haven't you ever seen "Twister"? Ever think
>that there was a reason the writers chose to use CB radios instead of
>ham radios in the movie?
As I recall, some time back for that movie, I thought they were
just NOAA radios. <shrug>
Motion picture industry folks have their own coordinating group
for frequency assignments in the PLMRS. At one time (before
privatization of frequency coordination) the movie people had
their own little sub-service listed in Title 47. Motion picture
production crews daily and regularly use two-way radios on sets.
>>> Maybe you missed the point: I'm not saying hams are useless.
>>
>>You wrote:
>>
>>**And historically, what do hams -really- do during a disaster? Some
>>**establish comm nets that are rarely used, while others take advantage
>>**of the opportunity to make "disaster-zone QSLs". That's about it.
>
>Yep, that's pretty much all I hear on the box. If they are doing
>anything more than occasional radio checks and net tests then maybe
>they are using some sort of new 'stealth radio' technology.....?
USA amateur radio is basically a HOBBY radio activity. Anyone
who joins ham radio looking to be some kind of hero saving the
day during emergencies and disasters doesn't have their head(s)
on straight.
The ONLY radio operator license that comes with any guarantee of
proficiency during a REAL emergency is the GMDSS commercial radio
operator license.
>> SO these CB'ers are manning emergency comms right in the middle of the
>>disaster area? Seems we would hear more about it.
>
>You probably would have had you ever been a CBer in the middle of a
>disaster area.
As you said earlier, he should do the math. CB sets outnumber
radio amateurs (total, all kinds) by at least 5 to 8 to one.
There's a higher probability of CB involvement in any random
emergency situation.
>> Great, let us know where to find the documentation. BTW, I wen to the
>>REACT site, and they could do a better job of getting this news out.
>
>I guess they don't toot their own horn as much as the hams do.
ARRL has been around since 1914 and emerged as the single
national organization of USA radio amateurs through some
excellent early-on marketing technique. One such technique
was to make all readers "feel good" and "important" by
relating their HOBBY to "national service" and other emotional
baggage-claim notices.
>>> You don't get it -- if the grid is down then it's down for a reason.
>>> If it's not a transmission or generator plant failure, the reason is
>>> usually because a number power lines are down. If the power lines are
>>> down then the phone lines will probably also be down, and it doesn't
>>> matter if the relay stations have backup power or not -- the phones
>>> won't work. And BTW, most cell-phone towers have battery backups just
>>> like telcom relay stations.
>>
>> And after a little while, they go down.
>
>Yes they do. But they are usually overloaded before they fail.
The BIG example of recent times is 11 years ago and the '94
Northridge Earthquake. The ENTIRE primary electrical power
to about 10 million folks was OFF. One MVe tower tipped over
and tripped out the whole of L.A. Telephone systems kept on
working on internal batteries.
Fire departments here rolled as needed on calls that came to the
stations over LEASED FIXED LINES that do NOT go through the
central office switchers. Lots and lots of various groups use
leased lines that do NOT go through central office switchers
and those will NOT be "overloaded" with subscribers in a panic.
I'm still waiting to hear of the amateur radio groups that came
to the immediate rescue here in L.A. when the entire electrical
system went down. The L.A. center emergency comms Hq didn't go
down; that was built to operate right through such things. The
PDs didn't go down, the FDs didn't go down, neither did the
various Utilities who had to restore things damaged.
I have yet to see ANY ham group that suddenly got operational
within minutes of the onset of ANY disaster...regardless of
the squibs inserted in little weekly newspapers...and "feel
good" stories in QST and on the 'web. The closest I remember
is a young teen girl in Washington state hearing a distress
call on her FRS HT...from a stranded climbing team on
Mt. Rainier. That was five years ago. The stranded group was
rescued by regular rescue workers, thanks to that lil gal's tip.
bit bit
LenAn...@ieee.org
Frank Gilliland
<w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
<dDDAe.21367$eM6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
<snip>
>Dan/W4NTI
>
>Just tellin the truth, and you cain't stand it.
I just did a cursory google search and found dozens of examples where
CB radio was used to save lives in emergency and disaster situations.
If you can't do it yourself just let me know and I'll compile a list
of links for you to browse through. In the meantime, maybe you should
remember who caught the DC sniper -- a CBer.
Michael Coslo
Hey, good one, Frank! Always good to see when someone decides to start
throwing insults around.....
>
>
>>>People are people. Some of us may behave
>>>poorly and irresponsibly when things are hunky-dory, but a disaster
>>>usually brings out the best from even the worst of us.
>>
>> And sometimes not, but that's all beside the point.
>
>
>
> Then why mention it?
IIRC, you are the one who mentioned it.
Why, no. No I didn't.
>
> 300,000,000 (number of people in US) / 650,000 (number of hams in US)
> = 461.54 (people per ham)
But the math is irrelevant.
>
>
>> Just as a point of interest, you write of some apparent necessity for
>>stations to be mobile. How many mobile stations are going to be in use
>>during a major hurricane? Are we supposed to head out in our pickups,
>>tuned to channel 9, and cruise up and down the beach as the storm surge
>>comes in?
>
>
>
> Depends on how stupid you are.
>
>
>
>> That might be the job of the police and other highly trained emergency
>>workers, but not us.
>>
>>
>> What do you see emergency comms as anyhow?
>
>
>
> There is plenty of warning for hurricanes these days, so there's
> plenty of time to mobilize whatever resources that may be needed.
> Regardless, you don't see too many hams out cruising the aftermath
> looking for victims. Tornados give a much better picture on the use of
> CB radios in an emergency. Haven't you ever seen "Twister"? Ever think
> that there was a reason the writers chose to use CB radios instead of
> ham radios in the movie?
>
Because they knew of the inherent superiority of Citizen band radio?
Because they knew that if they were to use Hams, they couldn't be
accurate unless they used a 75 y.o morbidly obese person with no teeth,
and gravy stains on his XXXXXL filthy T-shirt, that they wouldn't be
accurate?
<Sarc mode off>
Or much more likely they didn't want to interfere with the plot, and an
unlicensed service wouldn't introduce any complications?
Perhaps your antenna needs some work?
>
>>and
>>
>>**Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
>>**selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
>>**said for ham radio
>
>
>
> So have -YOU- heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
> selling CB operator services?
On I-80 in western PA, there is a Gentlemans club that uses CB to hawk
their wares. Fine graphic descriptions of the various YL's names and
"features, and if you want, you can talk to the YL's themselves.
Near the border with OH, another fine fellow is selling flea Market
type items, and spends time trying to entice truckers and other to stop
on in and do a little shoppin'.
Not selling their services, but selling nonetheless.
>
>
>>**Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
>>**carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
>>**dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
>>**Republican.
>>
>> hmmmm...
>
>
>
> Careful.... wearing a yellow spotted shirt doesn't always disguise
> those cheese stains.
>
>
>
>>>If an
>>>agency has the time and means to mobilize some hams to man some air
>>>conditioned communication op-centers, great, I'm sure that happens
>>>quite often. But you don't see too many of them in the trenches, which
>>>is where the wars are fought. That's where you'll find the CBers
>>>picking up the slack when the phone system doesn't work, when the PSP
>>>is overloaded, and when pre-planned logistics aren't flexible enough
>>>to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Happens all the time.
>>
>> Have any news releases?
>
>
>
> Nope, just first-hand experience in three different disasters.
Then you good folk need to get the word out.
Central PA
>
>
>>>>I
>>>>could always record some of this "noise" save it as an mp3 and post it here
>>>>for all to hear as a typical morning on chan 19.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You go right ahead and record all this stuff while listening to
>>>channel 9. Post it, as well as the time and location it was recorded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But ham radio -does- have a place in emergency communications -- as a
>>>>>communications infrastructure backup for extreme situations such as a
>>>>>nuclear holocaust, a large asteroid impact, a super-volanic eruption,
>>>>>or some other calamity that may happen on a continental or planetary
>>>>>scale. Until that happens, hams will just have to learn to live with
>>>>>the fact that, since the early 70's, CB radio has played a much larger
>>>>>role in disaster communication than ham radio, and will continue to do
>>>>>so in the future.
>>>>
>>>>yes. radio does have that purpose (an infrastructure backup) and only when
>>>>*trained* people are at the mic does it work effectively. how many people
>>>>do you know of that have worked CB during an emergency situation that have
>>>>been taken seriously by any EOC?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Several.
>>
>>
>> Great, let us know where to find the documentation. BTW, I wen to the
>>REACT site, and they could do a better job of getting this news out.
>
>
>
> I guess they don't toot their own horn as much as the hams do.
Probably be a good idea to start.
>
>
>>>>so far, I can't find any real reports of
>>>>any, other than those "numerous and conflicting reports" that never pan out
>>>>as factual. again, I require you cite me some factual sources that can be
>>>>verified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You "require me"? Get a life, Eric. Then get a CB radio and talk a
>>>while with some of the folks on the band. You'll get your sources
>>>there.
>>
>> I only ask. Requiring is a tad strong.
>>
>> And as for getting a CB, I have one. I don't hear the things you write
>>of....
>
>
>
> Your CB is a two-way radio, right? Ok then.
?
We agree on that!
I expect it won't be forthcoming though, unless he is talking about
sending a a broad message to a large group at one time. At that metric,
broadcast stations are sending out *millions* of comms per second.
The best I ever did while contesting is about 6 two
ways/operator/minute. And depending on the signals, it goes down pretty
quickly from there.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Frank Gilliland
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
<db0hp2$15ue$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
It's a gift.
>>>>People are people. Some of us may behave
>>>>poorly and irresponsibly when things are hunky-dory, but a disaster
>>>>usually brings out the best from even the worst of us.
>>>
>>> And sometimes not, but that's all beside the point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then why mention it?
>
> IIRC, you are the one who mentioned it.
Yes I did, and I mentioned it for a reason -- because it's -not-
"beside the point". It's very relevant to this topic since the vast
majority of people -do- cooperate and help others during emergencies
-despite- how they behave otherwise. The rest are sociopaths. Are you
willing to make a claim that CBers are, by definition, sociopaths?
Why? (....this should be good!)
>>> Just as a point of interest, you write of some apparent necessity for
>>>stations to be mobile. How many mobile stations are going to be in use
>>>during a major hurricane? Are we supposed to head out in our pickups,
>>>tuned to channel 9, and cruise up and down the beach as the storm surge
>>>comes in?
>>
>>
>>
>> Depends on how stupid you are.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That might be the job of the police and other highly trained emergency
>>>workers, but not us.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you see emergency comms as anyhow?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is plenty of warning for hurricanes these days, so there's
>> plenty of time to mobilize whatever resources that may be needed.
>> Regardless, you don't see too many hams out cruising the aftermath
>> looking for victims. Tornados give a much better picture on the use of
>> CB radios in an emergency. Haven't you ever seen "Twister"? Ever think
>> that there was a reason the writers chose to use CB radios instead of
>> ham radios in the movie?
>>
>
> Because they knew of the inherent superiority of Citizen band radio?
>
> Because they knew that if they were to use Hams, they couldn't be
>accurate unless they used a 75 y.o morbidly obese person with no teeth,
>and gravy stains on his XXXXXL filthy T-shirt, that they wouldn't be
>accurate?
>
><Sarc mode off>
>
> Or much more likely they didn't want to interfere with the plot, and an
>unlicensed service wouldn't introduce any complications?
Or maybe the technical advisors suggested they use radios that are a
little more realistic to the circumstances? Or when they were
researching for the movie they found that CB radios were widely used
for emergency communication in Tornado Alley? Those scenarios sound a
little more likely than because they were worried if ham radios would
confuse the audience. After all, ham radios didn't seem to cause any
matinee meltdowns with "Phenomenon" and "Frequency", did they?
Perhaps some hams need some exercise instead of more nachos.
>>>and
>>>
>>>**Have you ever heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
>>>**selling CB operator services? I haven't. Too bad the same can't be
>>>**said for ham radio
>>
>>
>>
>> So have -YOU- heard of anyone trying to capitalize on a disaster by
>> selling CB operator services?
>
> On I-80 in western PA, there is a Gentlemans club that uses CB to hawk
>their wares. Fine graphic descriptions of the various YL's names and
>"features, and if you want, you can talk to the YL's themselves.
>
> Near the border with OH, another fine fellow is selling flea Market
>type items, and spends time trying to entice truckers and other to stop
>on in and do a little shoppin'.
>
> Not selling their services, but selling nonetheless.
That's about the lamest argument yet -- you know it's not the same
thing, and that hams have swap-nets all the time.
>>>**Then you should have looked in a mirror. The point is that many hams
>>>**carry an elitist attitude that is just as visible (and offensive) as
>>>**dried cheese stains on a XXXL T-shirt stretched around a flatulating
>>>**Republican.
>>>
>>> hmmmm...
>>
>>
>>
>> Careful.... wearing a yellow spotted shirt doesn't always disguise
>> those cheese stains.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>If an
>>>>agency has the time and means to mobilize some hams to man some air
>>>>conditioned communication op-centers, great, I'm sure that happens
>>>>quite often. But you don't see too many of them in the trenches, which
>>>>is where the wars are fought. That's where you'll find the CBers
>>>>picking up the slack when the phone system doesn't work, when the PSP
>>>>is overloaded, and when pre-planned logistics aren't flexible enough
>>>>to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Happens all the time.
>>>
>>> Have any news releases?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, just first-hand experience in three different disasters.
>
> Then you good folk need to get the word out.
Why? CBers aren't hams -- we don't need to stroke our egos by bragging
about how CB radio plays such a significant role in emergencies and
disasters -- most people already know it!
IOW, quit listening and start communicating.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> I just did a cursory google search and found dozens of examples where
> CB radio was used to save lives in emergency and disaster situations.
WOW, dozens!! Hams have been participating in emergency and disaster
situations and saving lives for some 75+ years.
> If you can't do it yourself just let me know and I'll compile a list
> of links for you to browse through. In the meantime, maybe you should
> remember who caught the DC sniper -- a CBer.
Big deal.
Dan/W4NTI
radio. How about taking your CB radio talk to a CB radio discussion board?
Dan/W4NTI
"Frank Gilliland" <wīrenut@NOSPAMīcehouse.net> wrote in message
news:k247d11hj6fd34fsd...@4ax.com...
b.b.
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: b.b. on Jul 9, 12:54 pm
>
> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> From: "Jim Hampton" on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 23:58
> >> >"b.b." <billybee...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Jim Hampton wrote:
> > >> > From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
> > >> > one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
>
> >> >> Of course, the cell phone is more widely available to the public than
> >> >> your amateur radio. The cell phone may keep working just fine in
> >> >> personal or small emergencies. The cell phone often works during the
> >> >> initial stages of a larger emergency. In other words, the cell phone
> >> >> can be extremely useful.
>
> Latest estimate in the Los Angeles TIMES of Saturday morning
> (9 Jul 05) has OVER 175 MILLION cell phones among the USA
> public. There are now MORE cell phone subscribers than there
> are wired-line phone subscribers!
LA Times just has to be wrong. Send a letter to the editor calling him
a PUTZ!
;^)
> >Welp, that's just the way it is. Not everyone is able to walk around
> >with their very own amateur radio communicator at their side.
>
> A few previous PCTA extra stalwarts in here (now gone) used
> to talk about "shack on a belt" denigration of HTs. :-)
Yep. A "shack on a belt" is a terrible thing to have in an emergency.
> >> In this morning's Los Angeles TIMES, page one, is a story on
> >> the London bombings stating that the estimated number of
> >> cell phones in the USA is 192 MILLION now and about a third
> >> of them have video capability. Network news on TV showed many
> >> short video clips from the immediate disaster areas in London.
> >
> >They didn't weight for a bunch of overwait ATVers to show up and do
> >damage assessments? What's the state of emergency comms coming to?
>
> I'm still waiting to see what sort of Creative Writing the
> ARRL is going to put on their "news" web page where ham
> radio "went to the rescue in London" etc., etc. So far, the
> network news and services have been mum on ham radio used in
> this latest emergency over there.
It's a secret.
> >> I have yet to see any TV news talking about "amateur radio
> >> emergency communications" in the London area. <shrug>
> >
> >Jims says the bus was underground and amateur comms would work. Not
> >even CW.
>
> No?!? Gosh, kinda puts the lie to "CW gets through when
> nothing else will..." :-)
The #1 Morse Myth. Aaron Jones, where are you?
> Ackshully, there's such a thing as a "leaky wave antenna"
> that is used in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels, the Los Angeles
> Subway (yes, I know, strange concept that) system, and many
> other places. With the right shaping and dimensions, a tunnel
> can be a sort of waveguide above cutoff for high VHF and up.
Sometimes I get GPS signals indoors.
> >> No doubt someone in here will insist that all the video clips
> >> are "fakes" because "everyone knows that cell phones go down
> >> in any emergency." :-)
> >
> >Doesn't everyone know that?
>
> Stebie might say it's a "LIE!" but then he says lots and lots of
> things are "LIES!" :-)
He's a Liarphobe.
> >> We can always count on the Amateur Emergency Corps to come
> >> through with "CW" and the johnny-on-the-spot morsemen.
> >
> >I thought I saw a few frames of a guy in a CAP flight suit...
>
> With a moustache? :-)
Yikes! I think so...
> Not to worry...in a couple years Stebie will be claiming He
> Was There (with/without MARS).
He was at Woodstock and Vietnam at the same time. ;))
> >> BTW, the cell sites in the L.A. area are equipped with back-
> >> up power in case the primary electricity goes out. Central
> >> offices have had battery back-up since the year dot. AM
> >> and FM broadcast stations had emergency power generators and
> >> were functioning okay even if the personnel were a bit shaky.
> >
> >But they all used CW, right?
>
> Yes, to most of them! "Continuous Wave" carrier with FM. :-)
beep beep.
> >> In London and, earlier, Madrid, the government communications
> >> kept on going through bombings. Gosh, with the way so many in
> >> here talk, absolutely NOBODY but the hams had any comms at all!
> >> <shrug> BTW, Yurp has an even higher density of cell phones
> >> than the USA according to the L.A. TIMES story.
> >
> >All those people without any comms at all?
>
> Yup...according to the MYTH in here. Whenever an emergency hits,
> "ALL the infrastructure GOES DOWN, quits, becomes defunct, won't
> work at all! The only thing that works is the radio amateur's
> mighty morsemachine radio!"
Good thing amateur radio is a vibrant, growing service.
> Talk about peyote puffing...those mythmakers are dreaming harder
> than ever...:-)
>
> bit bit
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Yep. They got on their "dreaming caps."
Jerry
Maybe you missed the point: I'm not saying hams are useless. If an agency
has the time and means to mobilize some hams to man some air conditioned
communication op-centers, great, I'm sure that happens
quite often. But you don't see too many of them in the trenches, which is
where the wars are fought. That's where you'll find the CBers picking up the
slack when the phone system doesn't work, when the PSP
is overloaded, and when pre-planned logistics aren't flexible enough
to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Happens all the time.
Now, now Frank,
All of this because of a troll, Few EOC's have an absense of ARES in a
disaster. In fact most counties I am aware have Amateur presence in their
EOC centers and are loathe to do without them. I have NEVER seen a "CB"
desk in an EOC, and that is simply a fact, not based on my like or dislike
of CB.
Fact is, the Homeland Security Department hands out grants to ARRL for
training emergency operators, traffic handling, and even mobile command
centers. One such mobile command center, filled with state-of-the-art
communications and data equipment, went to Aiken County, SC. The cost was
around $150,000. I can't definitively say, but I have honestly heard of NO
such grants to CB "clubs", REACT, or any other CB 'emergency' group. The
local EOC, if you were to suggest that CBers man radios or handle traffic,
honestly, would laugh you out of the house! Now, that is NOT to say that
they wouldn't welcome "legwork" such as taking photos of damaged
infrastructure, bringing in food/coffee, checking on the elderly, and
running other errands. For expeditious handling of emergency radio traffic?
No! At least, around here, it simply doesn't happen. It isn't meant
to be derisive or condescending: it is simply the way it is!
There is a perception amongst emergency folks, mostly brought on by CBers
themselves, that CBers are not organized, undisciplined, and are just plain
rowdy---too individualistic to be effectively used. It is an image problem
left over from Smokey & the Bandit. tan fer thar, good buddy, etc.
That is neither here nor there and does not satisfy the argument for or
against CB "emergency" radio. But what IS true, like it or not, Amateur
radio has a proven track record all thru its history of responding
professionally and quickly to emergencies both Federal, State, and local. It
has, thus, been recognized with permanent seats in EOC's nationwide and with
grants from the US Gov't. CB is basically a consumer "toy" that lacks
training and discipline to be an effective, professional radio asset.
J
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: b.b. on Jul 9, 12:54 pm
>> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> From: "Jim Hampton" on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 23:58
>> >> >"b.b." <billybee...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> Jim Hampton wrote:
>> > >> > From time to time arguments start over emergency communications. Usually,
>> > >> > one big point is that cell phones provide all the communications needed.
>
>> >> >> Of course, the cell phone is more widely available to the public than
>> >> >> your amateur radio. The cell phone may keep working just fine in
>> >> >> personal or small emergencies. The cell phone often works during the
>> >> >> initial stages of a larger emergency. In other words, the cell phone
>> >> >> can be extremely useful.
>
>> Latest estimate in the Los Angeles TIMES of Saturday morning
>> (9 Jul 05) has OVER 175 MILLION cell phones among the USA
>> public. There are now MORE cell phone subscribers than there
>> are wired-line phone subscribers!
>
>LA Times just has to be wrong. Send a letter to the editor calling him
>a PUTZ!
I did. Put Stebie's name and address at the end... :-)
>> >Welp, that's just the way it is. Not everyone is able to walk around
>> >with their very own amateur radio communicator at their side.
>
>> A few previous PCTA extra stalwarts in here (now gone) used
>> to talk about "shack on a belt" denigration of HTs. :-)
>
>Yep. A "shack on a belt" is a terrible thing to have in an emergency.
Isn't it awful? Why, "everyone knows" that morse code has been
used "forever" in ham radio to "save lives." Ham radio equipment
survives everything that nature (and man) can throw at it while
all other radios "go down."
>> >> In this morning's Los Angeles TIMES, page one, is a story on
>> >> the London bombings stating that the estimated number of
>> >> cell phones in the USA is 192 MILLION now and about a third
>> >> of them have video capability. Network news on TV showed many
>> >> short video clips from the immediate disaster areas in London.
>
>> >They didn't weight for a bunch of overwait ATVers to show up and do
>> >damage assessments? What's the state of emergency comms coming to?
>
>> I'm still waiting to see what sort of Creative Writing the
>> ARRL is going to put on their "news" web page where ham
>> radio "went to the rescue in London" etc., etc. So far, the
>> network news and services have been mum on ham radio used in
>> this latest emergency over there.
>
>It's a secret.
At the Church of St. Hiram such info is classified "top sacred."
>> >> I have yet to see any TV news talking about "amateur radio
>> >> emergency communications" in the London area. <shrug>
>
>> >Jims says the bus was underground and amateur comms would work. Not
>> >even CW.
>
>> No?!? Gosh, kinda puts the lie to "CW gets through when
>> nothing else will..." :-)
>
>The #1 Morse Myth. Aaron Jones, where are you?
Prolly rolling on the floor, laffing his ass off... :-)
>> Ackshully, there's such a thing as a "leaky wave antenna"
>> that is used in Boston's "Big Dig" tunnels, the Los Angeles
>> Subway (yes, I know, strange concept that) system, and many
>> other places. With the right shaping and dimensions, a tunnel
>> can be a sort of waveguide above cutoff for high VHF and up.
>
>Sometimes I get GPS signals indoors.
I wonder what others' position is on that? :-)
>> >> No doubt someone in here will insist that all the video clips
>> >> are "fakes" because "everyone knows that cell phones go down
>> >> in any emergency." :-)
>
>> >Doesn't everyone know that?
>
>> Stebie might say it's a "LIE!" but then he says lots and lots of
>> things are "LIES!" :-)
>
>He's a Liarphobe.
He is SOMETHING, fer sure...
>> >> We can always count on the Amateur Emergency Corps to come
>> >> through with "CW" and the johnny-on-the-spot morsemen.
>
>> >I thought I saw a few frames of a guy in a CAP flight suit...
>
>> With a moustache? :-)
>
>Yikes! I think so...
TiVO never lies. :-)
>> Not to worry...in a couple years Stebie will be claiming He
>> Was There (with/without MARS).
>
>He was at Woodstock and Vietnam at the same time. ;))
LSD is at the heart of his problem?!?
>> >> BTW, the cell sites in the L.A. area are equipped with back-
>> >> up power in case the primary electricity goes out. Central
>> >> offices have had battery back-up since the year dot. AM
>> >> and FM broadcast stations had emergency power generators and
>> >> were functioning okay even if the personnel were a bit shaky.
>
>> >But they all used CW, right?
>
>> Yes, to most of them! "Continuous Wave" carrier with FM. :-)
>
>beep beep.
There you go, sounding all "qualified" again... :-)
>> >> In London and, earlier, Madrid, the government communications
>> >> kept on going through bombings. Gosh, with the way so many in
>> >> here talk, absolutely NOBODY but the hams had any comms at all!
>> >> <shrug> BTW, Yurp has an even higher density of cell phones
>> >> than the USA according to the L.A. TIMES story.
>
>> >All those people without any comms at all?
>
>> Yup...according to the MYTH in here. Whenever an emergency hits,
>> "ALL the infrastructure GOES DOWN, quits, becomes defunct, won't
>> work at all! The only thing that works is the radio amateur's
>> mighty morsemachine radio!"
>
>Good thing amateur radio is a vibrant, growing service.
There ya go! According to Hamdata website for 0015 Z on 13 Jul 05:
721,639 total licensees in USA (exclusive of "club" calls).
There were 728,660 total individual licensees on 13 Jul 03 or a
two-year drop of 7,030 licensees.
In the last year 16,019 NEW licensees but 19,352 expirations.
That's a one-year loss of 3,333.
The total of Technician and Technician Plus class licensees is
349,515 or 48.43 percent of total individual licensees.
BTW, Technician class licensees (294,166) are just a tad
over twice as many General class licensees (146,728).
Seems to my memory that lots of amateur extra morsemen in here
were saying that the Technician class was "going to decline
drastically when their renewal is up." So much for the
"morsetradamuses" in here on predictions...
>> Talk about peyote puffing...those mythmakers are dreaming harder
>> than ever...:-)
>
>Yep. They got on their "dreaming caps."
Homebrewed Reynolds Wrap variety, I'm sure...
Pass the peyote, pardner, I feel another "prediction" percolating.
pop pop
LenAn...@ieee.org
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <eqYAe.60939$Tt.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
<snip>
>Now, now Frank,
>
>All of this because of a troll, Few EOC's have an absense of ARES in a
>disaster. In fact most counties I am aware have Amateur presence in their
>EOC centers and are loathe to do without them. I have NEVER seen a "CB"
>desk in an EOC, and that is simply a fact, not based on my like or dislike
>of CB.
Well, let's clear something up here..... not all emergency
communication is routed through an EOC. Communication happens on -all-
levels, not just at some command hub. The fact is that the -majority-
of communication occurs among the -majority- of people. Hams are few.
CBers are plenty. Which one do -you- think gets used more? Regardless,
I found this link in my quick-n-dirty search in response to Dan's
post:
http://www.react4800.org/reports/default.htm
I found several more from other REACT groups that look very similar,
including cooperation with EOC's. Looks like reality is a little
different than your perception of it.
>Fact is, the Homeland Security Department hands out grants to ARRL for
>training emergency operators, traffic handling, and even mobile command
>centers. One such mobile command center, filled with state-of-the-art
>communications and data equipment, went to Aiken County, SC. The cost was
>around $150,000. I can't definitively say, but I have honestly heard of NO
>such grants to CB "clubs", REACT, or any other CB 'emergency' group.
You are right: you -can't- definitely say if they have received any
grants from Homeland Security. So what if they haven't? Does that make
them a non-entity?
> The
>local EOC, if you were to suggest that CBers man radios or handle traffic,
>honestly, would laugh you out of the house! Now, that is NOT to say that
>they wouldn't welcome "legwork" such as taking photos of damaged
>infrastructure, bringing in food/coffee, checking on the elderly, and
>running other errands. For expeditious handling of emergency radio traffic?
>No! At least, around here, it simply doesn't happen. It isn't meant
> to be derisive or condescending: it is simply the way it is!
I think the American Red Cross might disagree with you.
>There is a perception amongst emergency folks, mostly brought on by CBers
>themselves, that CBers are not organized, undisciplined, and are just plain
>rowdy---too individualistic to be effectively used. It is an image problem
>left over from Smokey & the Bandit. tan fer thar, good buddy, etc.
I don't know where you developed this perception, but believe me on
this one.... you are very wrong: http://www.reactintl.org
>That is neither here nor there and does not satisfy the argument for or
>against CB "emergency" radio. But what IS true, like it or not, Amateur
>radio has a proven track record all thru its history of responding
>professionally and quickly to emergencies both Federal, State, and local. It
>has, thus, been recognized with permanent seats in EOC's nationwide and with
>grants from the US Gov't. CB is basically a consumer "toy" that lacks
>training and discipline to be an effective, professional radio asset.
Aw, come on Jerry, you aren't one of those nacho-drooling hams, are
you? I thought at least -you-, after listening to Bert in rrcb for
several years, would recognize the valuable contributions that CB
radio has made, and continues to make, in emergency communications.
Too bad.
Frank Gilliland
<w4...@mindNOSPAMATALLspring.com> wrote in
<Q_XAe.9116$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>This discussion is about Ham Radio. You seem to want to talk about CB
>radio. How about taking your CB radio talk to a CB radio discussion board?
It's about -both- ham radio and CB radio, but I'll be sure to remember
your request the next time some of the rrap dribble gets crossposted
to rrcb (which is how I got involved in this discussion).
b.b.
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: b.b. on Jul 12, 7:30 pm
> >
> >Good thing amateur radio is a vibrant, growing service.
>
> There ya go! According to Hamdata website for 0015 Z on 13 Jul 05:
>
> 721,639 total licensees in USA (exclusive of "club" calls).
>
> There were 728,660 total individual licensees on 13 Jul 03 or a
> two-year drop of 7,030 licensees.
>
> In the last year 16,019 NEW licensees but 19,352 expirations.
> That's a one-year loss of 3,333.
>
> The total of Technician and Technician Plus class licensees is
> 349,515 or 48.43 percent of total individual licensees.
>
> BTW, Technician class licensees (294,166) are just a tad
> over twice as many General class licensees (146,728).
>
> Seems to my memory that lots of amateur extra morsemen in here
> were saying that the Technician class was "going to decline
> drastically when their renewal is up." So much for the
> "morsetradamuses" in here on predictions...
I think Mark may speak in quatrains, but he's on the wrong side of the
argument for that. I discard the thought.
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
I see you are still trying the "quantity v. Quality" argument.
it just won't wash.....
read the facts again:
1. fact, amateur radio has a presence in every EOC across the country
2. fact, There are government grants given to ham radio every year for
system upgrades and disaster training
3. fact, ham radio has long been recognized as an essential part of the
Emergency preparedness backbone for nearly 80 years!
4. fact, no cb organization in the last 20 years has ever received a federal
grant for any reason, has no presense in any EOC and does not have a
probable track record of usefulness in any natural or man made disaster of
note in the last 20 years or so.
your "obtuse point" about there being many more cb sets is irrelevant. fact
is, only a fraction of those are ever in operation on a daily basis. a lot
of them languish (unused) either in vehicles or removed and in storage.
lastly, with regard to the cellular services: they have their own set of
problems resulting from too many subscribers and not enough available
infrastructure to handle them (hence "dropped calls", poor service and
enormous complaints about QOS).
Frankly, you make a claim to having personal experience with distasters (3
of them I believe), yet, you still argue against a service which has done
more to save lives than any other (outside of fema or the us military)?
this make no logical sense. ah well. you aren't the only one conversant
with natural (or man made) disasters. I have served my fair share of
"disaster relief" time through 3 major earthquakes, 2 major fires and a
major flood and 2 "cat 5" hurricanes. so don't go trying to impress anyone
with your so-called expertice. you don't have any (and I freely admit that
more training is always a must as one can never be too prepared).
--
DE N7ZZT
Eric Oyen
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: n7zzt(at)hotmail(dot)com
the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Frank Gilliland
<n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <r46Be.36251$up5.8566@lakeread02>:
<snip>
>I see you are still trying the "quantity v. Quality" argument.
Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. But what you -still- don't
seem to understand that a disaster usually affects a great -quantity-
of people, not just a few -quality- people.
>it just won't wash.....
>read the facts again:
>1. fact, amateur radio has a presence in every EOC across the country
They also have a presence in REACT. If CB radio was as useless as you
claim, why would the ARRL and American Red Cross consider the service
to be useful for emergency communications? Or are you going to claim
that you are smarter than the ARRL and the Red Cross?
>2. fact, There are government grants given to ham radio every year for
>system upgrades and disaster training
Fact: the government hands out grants to anyone who has a lobbyist in
congress. Another fact: REACT is a volunteer, self-supported org that
apparently doesn't need government handouts.
>3. fact, ham radio has long been recognized as an essential part of the
>Emergency preparedness backbone for nearly 80 years!
Essential? I don't think so, Eric.
>4. fact, no cb organization in the last 20 years has ever received a federal
>grant for any reason,
Is it all about the money?
> has no presense in any EOC
Wrong. REACT has had a role -many- times in EOC operations during
emergencies, or didn't you read that link I cited in another post?
> and does not have a
>probable track record of usefulness in any natural or man made disaster of
>note in the last 20 years or so.
Wrong again, Eric. Instead of making statements based on conjecture
and your own prejudicial bias against CB radio, why don't you spend a
little time to actually -learn- something about REACT, its operation
and its history.
>your "obtuse point" about there being many more cb sets is irrelevant.
Once again, why is it irrelevant?
> fact
>is, only a fraction of those are ever in operation on a daily basis. a lot
>of them languish (unused) either in vehicles or removed and in storage.
It doesn't take very long to hook up a CB radio. And it doesn't take a
ham to do it, either.
>lastly, with regard to the cellular services: they have their own set of
>problems resulting from too many subscribers and not enough available
>infrastructure to handle them (hence "dropped calls", poor service and
>enormous complaints about QOS).
I don't know why you are arguing about cell-phones -- I agree that
they are mostly useless in an emergency. Or are you just arguing for
the sake of arguing?
>Frankly, you make a claim to having personal experience with distasters (3
>of them I believe), yet, you still argue against a service which has done
>more to save lives than any other (outside of fema or the us military)?
HA! You are -=WAY=- out of the loop on THAT one, Eric. There are MANY
organizations that have done more to save lives than ham radio, not
the least of which is the Red Cross, an organization that works very
closely with REACT. And REACT works on a daily basis, monitoring for
emergencies both large and small 24/7/365. I could easily make a list
of organizations that have done more to save lives than ARRL, and it
would be a rather long list to be sure.
But once again, it's not a matter of any organization as much as a
means of communication. CB radios are common, cheap, easy to use, and
are the most readily available means of communication to the average
Joe when phone systems fail. Those are things that can -never- be said
about ham radio. Ham radio might consider itself to be the "backbone"
of emergency comm (even though the PSP really holds that title), but
the backbone just stands there like a stick in the mud unless there's
something for it to support. And since AMATEUR radio is really the
"backbone backup" (because PROFESSIONALS handle the primary means of
communications), the hams are usually just sticks in the mud.
>this make no logical sense. ah well. you aren't the only one conversant
>with natural (or man made) disasters. I have served my fair share of
>"disaster relief" time through 3 major earthquakes, 2 major fires and a
>major flood and 2 "cat 5" hurricanes. so don't go trying to impress anyone
>with your so-called expertice.
Not "expertice", Eric -- my "experiences". Things I have learned
first-hand. And if -you- had any then you wouldn't be making some of
these horrendously ignorant arguments.
> you don't have any (and I freely admit that
>more training is always a must as one can never be too prepared).
Then get a little training with REACT -- that is, if you can supress
your contempt and suck up your ego long enough to speak objectively
with CBers (many of which are also hams, the traitors!).
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:31:50 -0700, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
> <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <r46Be.36251$up5.8566@lakeread02>:
>
> <snip>
>>I see you are still trying the "quantity v. Quality" argument.
>
>
> Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. But what you -still- don't
> seem to understand that a disaster usually affects a great -quantity-
> of people, not just a few -quality- people.
but, as you seem to pass over every time, its not the quantity of
communications, but the QUALITY of the information conveyed that is the
real point. The better your communications infrastructure (I.E.
Redundancy), the better your quality of communication (even if the actual
number of hams is fewer than anticipated)
>
>
>>it just won't wash.....
>>read the facts again:
>>1. fact, amateur radio has a presence in every EOC across the country
>
>
> They also have a presence in REACT. If CB radio was as useless as you
> claim, why would the ARRL and American Red Cross consider the service
> to be useful for emergency communications? Or are you going to claim
> that you are smarter than the ARRL and the Red Cross?
funny that. REACT doesn't have a local presence at all in Phoenix (that I
know of). they more or less went out of business as a going concern
sometime in the mid 1980's (due primarily to a lack of interest, malicious
interference from yahoo's on the band and other reasons). Besides, its not
a claim. just turn on the radio and tune around. more than 90% of the
traffic on a typical cb channel these days is meaningless chatter,
malicious interference or just simply noise.
>
>
>>2. fact, There are government grants given to ham radio every year for
>>system upgrades and disaster training
>
>
> Fact: the government hands out grants to anyone who has a lobbyist in
> congress. Another fact: REACT is a volunteer, self-supported org that
> apparently doesn't need government handouts.
>
gee, perhaps a little FOI request should yield some results. perhaps they
don't bother because they have no real credible nationwide support
structure (like ham radio does)?
>
>>3. fact, ham radio has long been recognized as an essential part of the
>>Emergency preparedness backbone for nearly 80 years!
>
>
> Essential? I don't think so, Eric.
care to back that up with some facts?
automatically "gain saying" the opposing point just won't cut it.
>
>
>>4. fact, no cb organization in the last 20 years has ever received a
>>federal grant for any reason,
>
>
> Is it all about the money?
its about training and resources. the fact that money is even involved
indicates than an economy is at work even here. it takes money to acquire
equipment. it takes money to get training and it takes money to do other
things. but that isn't the point. the fact still stands of its own merit:
"no cb organization in the last 20 years has ever received a federal grant
for any reason"
>
>
>> has no presense in any EOC
>
>
> Wrong. REACT has had a role -many- times in EOC operations during
> emergencies, or didn't you read that link I cited in another post?
oh. the claim. I followed that one up. seem their report doesn't match with
facts as read elsewhere (such as FEMA, national Guard and a few other well
placed sources of INFO). its "their side" with no real support from
anywhere else. try again.
>
>
>> and does not have a
>>probable track record of usefulness in any natural or man made disaster of
>>note in the last 20 years or so.
>
>
> Wrong again, Eric. Instead of making statements based on conjecture
> and your own prejudicial bias against CB radio, why don't you spend a
> little time to actually -learn- something about REACT, its operation
> and its history.
conjecture? pardon me while you HOLD THE PHONE. you don't know my history. I
was a member of react back in the 1980's (before it went under in Arizona).
I was a CB user from the age of 10 and left the band for good after
problems with a fellow CB operator impersonating a ham caused excessive
(and potentially life threatening) problems (1995). I have nothing against
CB radio as a hobby and perhaps even as a commercial medium, but as a
resource in an emergency situation? I would rather depend on people I
*KNOW* are trained in disaster relief *by legitimate authorities* than some
wannabe group whose actual training might be called into question,
*ESPECIALLY* should litigation result due to circumstances that could have
been prevented if properly trained people were on site to begin with (seen
this too).
>
>
>>your "obtuse point" about there being many more cb sets is irrelevant.
>
>
> Once again, why is it irrelevant?
I see you snipped the answer to that one. read it again.
better yet, I'll explain in greater detail:
1. of the 20 million odd cb radios floating around in the US and other
places the US controlls: 35% of them would not meet type acceptance (due to
illegal modification), 40% go unused (due to lack of interest, noise,
storage or breakdown). The remainder are often in the hands of either
children or adults who have virtually no training in their proper use. that
leaves us with somewhat less than 1% (and there is even a question as to
that figure). now, how many of those sets are active on a daily basis? How
many of those sets are being used by someone who has, at least a good
knowledge of the rules and regulations governing their use? how many of
those actual operators are actually trained in some disaster relief by
accredited agencies?
why don't you give me some really good hard data to work with?
whats your real problem with ham radio?
>
>
>> fact
>>is, only a fraction of those are ever in operation on a daily basis. a lot
>>of them languish (unused) either in vehicles or removed and in storage.
>
>
> It doesn't take very long to hook up a CB radio. And it doesn't take a
> ham to do it, either.
uh huh. and it doesn't take damned long to blow a fuse and start a fire
either because some twit decided to do it himself and didn't have the
knowhow to hook it up right (I have witnessed this first hand on more than
one occassion). at least, with hams, you have some education (its part of
being a ham: learning about electricity, electronics and operations and
procedures).
>
>
>>lastly, with regard to the cellular services: they have their own set of
>>problems resulting from too many subscribers and not enough available
>>infrastructure to handle them (hence "dropped calls", poor service and
>>enormous complaints about QOS).
>
>
> I don't know why you are arguing about cell-phones -- I agree that
> they are mostly useless in an emergency. Or are you just arguing for
> the sake of arguing?
you initially brought up the cell phone issue and now you've backpeddled
knowing I was right (and having a few others in here point that out to you
probably helped a bit)
>
>
>>Frankly, you make a claim to having personal experience with distasters (3
>>of them I believe), yet, you still argue against a service which has done
>>more to save lives than any other (outside of fema or the us military)?
>
>
> HA! You are -=WAY=- out of the loop on THAT one, Eric. There are MANY
> organizations that have done more to save lives than ham radio, not
> the least of which is the Red Cross, an organization that works very
> closely with REACT. And REACT works on a daily basis, monitoring for
> emergencies both large and small 24/7/365. I could easily make a list
> of organizations that have done more to save lives than ARRL, and it
> would be a rather long list to be sure.
yeah, I didn't name them all (like the red cross, MARS, CAP, Goodwill,
Salvation Army, and others). heres a point for you to consider: 1989
October, oakland California... I wasn't a ham then and I was at that
baseball game (had been visually impaired only 4 months at this point and
was traveling with a friend). I had a cb HT with me, a small am radio (to
listen to the play-by-play and my friend had a ham rig (he was licensed).
the quake happened and you know what, my repeated calls for help on CB went
unanswered or were blown off by some idiots as "what? is this a joke".
meanwhile, that ham I was with, he got through to another ham via repeater
and had my helpth/welfare traffic passed to family here in phoenix and he
was on and off the air in less than 2 minutes (all very professional). he
was even handling other traffic for those around us in the stadium. we were
stuck there for 12 hours (traffic problems) and he had helped more people.
I listened to my next to useless CB HT and marveled at the amount of
interference, cross talk, and lack of organization (and that was on chan
9!) Point is, that ham friend of mine got a lot more done in far shorter
time than anyone with a Cb set would ever dream of. I know, I witnessed it.
It took me less than 3 years to make up my mind to get my ham ticket and I
aced that exam on the first try. I have a shortwave radio I listen to daily
and I still marvel at the amount of noise, keyclowns and other nonsense
that still pervades the 11 meter band. I have hauled that radio with me to
places like the northridge quake in southern California, hurricane Andrew
and Hugo (this one I was right in the middle of during a vacation visiting
friends) and a few other places. in all those times, I actually listened on
11 meters during my off times and I was amazed at the amount of noise,
interference and the like in all those times. there was no pretense to any
help. it was a useless band filled with a bunch of useless operators.
in all these times, I saw ham radio shine as an example of what a real
service should do and in all those times, I regretted ever having been an
11 meter operator before being a ham.
>
> But once again, it's not a matter of any organization as much as a
> means of communication. CB radios are common, cheap, easy to use, and
> are the most readily available means of communication to the average
> Joe when phone systems fail. Those are things that can -never- be said
> about ham radio. Ham radio might consider itself to be the "backbone"
> of emergency comm (even though the PSP really holds that title), but
> the backbone just stands there like a stick in the mud unless there's
> something for it to support. And since AMATEUR radio is really the
> "backbone backup" (because PROFESSIONALS handle the primary means of
> communications), the hams are usually just sticks in the mud.
cb is cheap. the operators are unprofessional (for the most part). half of
the time, they don't even work (because they were either broken, installed
improperly or the operator had no clue how to use them). you know
something, the next disaster that comes along, grab a portable shortwave
and start listening around 11. I think you'll have a whole new appreciation
for how professional hams are in times like those.
>
>
>>this make no logical sense. ah well. you aren't the only one conversant
>>with natural (or man made) disasters. I have served my fair share of
>>"disaster relief" time through 3 major earthquakes, 2 major fires and a
>>major flood and 2 "cat 5" hurricanes. so don't go trying to impress anyone
>>with your so-called expertice.
>
>
> Not "expertice", Eric -- my "experiences". Things I have learned
> first-hand. And if -you- had any then you wouldn't be making some of
> these horrendously ignorant arguments.
you didn't stipulate 'experience". you implied expertice. I am, by no means
an expert and never claimed to be. just because I volunteer for every
public service even that comes along, get training at the EOC each year,
work with local law enforcement and fire, do every emergency service drill
that comes along, doesn't make me an expert. it does, however say one
thing: I have a lot more training than the "average Joe" you speak of on CB
radio (and I have been active in this since I acquired my ticket). How many
"avergage Joe" REACT operators can you say have this level of training and
experience (longer than a decade)? here's and answer I challenge you to
refute with real facts: DAMNED FEW!
>
>
>> you don't have any (and I freely admit that
>>more training is always a must as one can never be too prepared).
>
>
> Then get a little training with REACT -- that is, if you can supress
> your contempt and suck up your ego long enough to speak objectively
> with CBers (many of which are also hams, the traitors!).
hello? pot? theres a guy on the phone with a message for you (says his name
is kettle). message is: your black!
Michael Coslo
> Frank Gilliland wrote:
<snip>
>>Once again, why is it irrelevant?
>
>
> I see you snipped the answer to that one. read it again.
>
> better yet, I'll explain in greater detail:
> 1. of the 20 million odd cb radios floating around in the US and other
> places the US controlls: 35% of them would not meet type acceptance (due to
> illegal modification), 40% go unused (due to lack of interest, noise,
> storage or breakdown). The remainder are often in the hands of either
> children or adults who have virtually no training in their proper use. that
> leaves us with somewhat less than 1% (and there is even a question as to
> that figure). now, how many of those sets are active on a daily basis? How
> many of those sets are being used by someone who has, at least a good
> knowledge of the rules and regulations governing their use? how many of
> those actual operators are actually trained in some disaster relief by
> accredited agencies?
>
> why don't you give me some really good hard data to work with?
>
> whats your real problem with ham radio?
The odd thing is that while we've gotten a breakdown on the number of
Ham radio operators as compared to the population of the US (as if every
person in the US is going to have traffic for every Ham op) we now go in
complete reverse - miraculously every CB rig is going to be pressed into
service in time of need. 20 million radios ready to save life and property.
This whole part of the argument is weird and borders on irrelevant.
For an interesting coomparison, why don't we come up with the ratio of
say EMT's to the general population. Yet somehow they do their jobs.
>>
>>>fact
>>>is, only a fraction of those are ever in operation on a daily basis. a lot
>>>of them languish (unused) either in vehicles or removed and in storage.
>>
>>
>>It doesn't take very long to hook up a CB radio. And it doesn't take a
>>ham to do it, either.
>
>
> uh huh. and it doesn't take damned long to blow a fuse and start a fire
> either because some twit decided to do it himself and didn't have the
> knowhow to hook it up right (I have witnessed this first hand on more than
> one occassion). at least, with hams, you have some education (its part of
> being a ham: learning about electricity, electronics and operations and
> procedures).
In high school, I used to make some extra cash by repairing electrical
wiring in vehicles. A lot of them had melted and shorted wiring caused
by the owner hooking up a CB rig incorrectly. You'de be surprised how
often it happens.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Frank Gilliland
<n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in <qooBe.36290$up5.33161@lakeread02>:
<snip BS>
>whats your real problem with ham radio?
I have no problem at all with ham radio, just the holier-than-thou
attitudes of a few hams such as yourself. What's -your- problem with
CB radio?
Frank Gilliland
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in
<db5n3e$16q2$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>:
<snip>
> In high school, I used to make some extra cash by repairing electrical
>wiring in vehicles. A lot of them had melted and shorted wiring caused
>by the owner hooking up a CB rig incorrectly. You'de be surprised how
>often it happens.
No, I wouldn't. But -you- would be suprised at how many times I've had
to do some rewiring (house -and- vehicle) because a -ham- hooked up
his rig incorrectly..... and a couple times because a ham hooked up
someone's CB incorrectly!
Jerry
During 9/11, I was on the air handling communications for
one of those "other" agencies", arranging some transportation that to be
used if needed, coordinating local activities with ARES, talking to FEMA,
and monitoring all my other comm. resources--one of which I finally turned
off due to sheer annoyance (guess which one). Of course, none of us knew
what would happen next. During a lull in the activity in my shack, the CB
was, of course, alive with discussions of what was happening (before it got
on my nerves and it was turned OFF) But I almost fell off my chair when a
loud, over-modulated voice said, "..............
An' we is a standin' by thar to copy that 'ere EEE-mer-gen-cee" traffic
thar, shore thang thar, mercy me, BREAK, SQUEEEEEEEK" LMAO!!!!!!! Hardly
an encouraging example of "professional" communications abilities.
No question, CB radio can be used in emergencies: no question, no argument.
BUT! I have to agree with you, Eric that, there is NO C O O R D I N A T E
D, cohesive, or effective official use of CB radio, nor is it planned for or
depended upon by local and state EOC's. CB could be used to do many things,
and no doubt it would be. Like CBers could organize to go check on the
elderly to see if they are provided for in their homes if the power is out,
see that they have heat, or fans, or food. They could be used to clean up
after a disaster, canvas an area--lots of things, but this would still have
to be coordinated by people that are TRAINED to do this. CB radio is a
consumer toy: the CBer is usually an appliance operator. He normally has NO
skills, in and of his mere access to some sort of a radio. Thus, I contend,
based on 40 years of involvement in military and civilian emergency radio
operations, there is N O official sanction, planning for, or use of CB radio
in state and local EOC's. Period. Sure, the general public will use CB
radio--just like they would use the landline phone or cell. So long as it
is available. Yes, THAT is "emergency" communications. But dedicated,
formal, purpose-oriented communications is handled thru official Federal,
State, and local channels. And Amateur radio was and IS part of that
function. Amateurs CAN cross-communicate with the military-they have MARS
with which to pass traffic FOR the military": CB radio does NOT! Amateur
Radio has permanent desks in most state and local EOC's: CB radio does NOT!
Amateur Radio has direct access to FEMA via FEMA's radio network and
frequencies: CB radio does NOT! Amateur Radio, thru ARRL and local clubs,
recieves Federal grants for training and equipment: CB radio does NOT!
Whether "REACT" *could* is debatable, but does this lack of funding or
demonstration of worth reflect disorganization and lack of
internal cohesiveness--even lack of confidence on the part of HomeLand
Security towards REACT? (What do they really 'react' to? I've never even
SEEN 'em!).
The thread, or troll, asks about Amateur Radio's role in emergency
communications VS CB radio. On one hand, it is apples and oranges, the
other, is not a fair comparison.
So let's boil it down to the central questions.
1) Does/Can CB radio get used for emergency communications? Bottom
line..............YES! For local, immediate incidents such as wrecks on the
highway, fires,
lost persons--things the public would do with a phone or cell. Volunteer
Firemen use them for cheap comms.
2) Is CB radio recognized as a dependable, trained, effective resource in a
disaster such as a hurricane, flood, landslide, earthquake? One to be used
to coordinate official rescue and recovery operations? One to be relied upon
to get OFFICIAL, formal messages thru? Recognized by authorities and
sanctioned as part of their EOP's? No.
3) Is Amateur radio part of most official operations plans both on the State
and Federal level? Yes.
An' dem's de facts cuz we'uns is a-standin' by to pass that' ere
eee-mer-gen-cee traffic, shore thang, gre't day thar, mercy sakes thar
Sheriff!!! :) LOL!!
J
"N7ZZT - Eric Oyen" <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:qooBe.36290$up5.33161@lakeread02...
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
I know, but that is his "obtuse point". I doesn't matter the actual number
of trained operators, just the number of radio sets.
>
>
>>>
>>>>fact
>>>>is, only a fraction of those are ever in operation on a daily basis. a
>>>>lot of them languish (unused) either in vehicles or removed and in
>>>>storage.
>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't take very long to hook up a CB radio. And it doesn't take a
>>>ham to do it, either.
>>
>>
>> uh huh. and it doesn't take damned long to blow a fuse and start a fire
>> either because some twit decided to do it himself and didn't have the
>> knowhow to hook it up right (I have witnessed this first hand on more
>> than one occassion). at least, with hams, you have some education (its
>> part of being a ham: learning about electricity, electronics and
>> operations and procedures).
>
> In high school, I used to make some extra cash by repairing electrical
> wiring in vehicles. A lot of them had melted and shorted wiring caused
> by the owner hooking up a CB rig incorrectly. You'de be surprised how
> often it happens.
been there, sen that many times.
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
> Eric, (forgive the top posting to avoid all the text below)
not a problem... :)
>
> During 9/11, I was on the air handling communications for
> one of those "other" agencies", arranging some transportation that to be
> used if needed, coordinating local activities with ARES, talking to FEMA,
> and monitoring all my other comm. resources--one of which I finally turned
> off due to sheer annoyance (guess which one). Of course, none of us knew
> what would happen next. During a lull in the activity in my shack, the CB
> was, of course, alive with discussions of what was happening (before it
> got on my nerves and it was turned OFF) But I almost fell off my chair
> when a loud, over-modulated voice said, "..............
> An' we is a standin' by thar to copy that 'ere EEE-mer-gen-cee" traffic
> thar, shore thang thar, mercy me, BREAK, SQUEEEEEEEK" LMAO!!!!!!!
> Hardly an encouraging example of "professional" communications abilities.
saw that here more than I'd care to admit. :)
>
> No question, CB radio can be used in emergencies: no question, no
> argument.
true. I do believe the operative term for this would be "trained operators"?
all true. but you just don't see any of this in the current CB operator.
asking any of the current bunch in phoenix to do any real work would be
like pulling teeth without any anesthetic. in fact, I remember a couple of
events that transpired over the years here were cb operators (of a
particularly malicious group) actually attempted to directly interfere with
some on-going public service events (the Olympic torch rally was one). that
and many other small events (such as the multi-years long feud between
Trueman Ellard and H.L. Kingston pretty much put anyone in the EOC off ever
using cb for any serious work. no one on that band could demonstrate any
competence with the radio....
>
> The thread, or troll, asks about Amateur Radio's role in emergency
> communications VS CB radio. On one hand, it is apples and oranges, the
> other, is not a fair comparison.
very true. unfortunately, my sensibilities would not allow this F.U.D.
campaign to go unchallenged. its still up to him to prove that CB is really
as useful as he claimed.
>
> So let's boil it down to the central questions.
>
> 1) Does/Can CB radio get used for emergency communications? Bottom
> line..............YES! For local, immediate incidents such as wrecks on
> the highway, fires,
> lost persons--things the public would do with a phone or cell. Volunteer
> Firemen use them for cheap comms.
it can.... I haven't seen it used much in those capacities of late. had far
better response using ham radio, an autopatch and the 911 system.
>
> 2) Is CB radio recognized as a dependable, trained, effective resource in
> a disaster such as a hurricane, flood, landslide, earthquake? One to be
> used to coordinate official rescue and recovery operations? One to be
> relied upon to get OFFICIAL, formal messages thru? Recognized by
> authorities and
> sanctioned as part of their EOP's? No.
agreed. additional question: can it ever be relied upon in such situations?
only of operators were trained and drills held monthly. even then, there is
no guarantee that some "outside agitator" will try to muck things up.
>
> 3) Is Amateur radio part of most official operations plans both on the
> State and Federal level? Yes.
don't forget the local/county levels too. :)
>
> An' dem's de facts cuz we'uns is a-standin' by to pass that' ere
> eee-mer-gen-cee traffic, shore thang, gre't day thar, mercy sakes thar
> Sheriff!!! :) LOL!!
>
> J
hehehe
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Michael Coslo wrote:
>> N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote:
>>> Frank Gilliland wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>Once again, why is it irrelevant?
>>>
>>> I see you snipped the answer to that one. read it again.
>>>
>>> better yet, I'll explain in greater detail:
>>> 1. of the 20 million odd cb radios floating around in the US and other
>>> places the US controlls: 35% of them would not meet type acceptance (due
>>> to illegal modification), 40% go unused (due to lack of interest, noise,
>>> storage or breakdown). The remainder are often in the hands of either
>>> children or adults who have virtually no training in their proper use.
Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
amateur radios. [ham radio "in the hands of children" etc.]
Those "statistics" are of dubious value since NO source is
referenced.
>>> that leaves us with somewhat less than 1% (and there is even a question
>>> as to that figure). now, how many of those sets are active on a daily
>>> basis?
Drive the highways of the USA sometime and you will find out...:-)
>>> How many of those sets are being used by someone who has, at least
>>> a good knowledge of the rules and regulations governing their use?
Define this "good knowledge."
Are you going to say that passing a federal test last year, a few
years ago, or even many years ago constitutes "good knowledge of
the CURRENT regulations of amateur radio?
>>> how
>>> many of those actual operators are actually trained in some disaster
>>> relief by accredited agencies?
So, SHOW YOUR WORK in regards to how many licensed amateurs are
"actually trained in some disaster reflief" by anyone but their
own imagination?
Sorry, but all those "news" stories on the ARRL website don't
prove much other than the league is very busy promoting itself
first, amateur radio second.
Now, if there were so "many" amateur radio operators "actually
trained in some disaster relief," WHY would the ARRL be offering
those "training classes" in same?
>>> why don't you give me some really good hard data to work with?
>>>
>>> whats your real problem with ham radio?
>>
>> The odd thing is that while we've gotten a breakdown on the number of
>> Ham radio operators as compared to the population of the US (as if every
>> person in the US is going to have traffic for every Ham op) we now go in
>> complete reverse - miraculously every CB rig is going to be pressed into
>> service in time of need. 20 million radios ready to save life and
>> property.
>>
>> This whole part of the argument is weird and borders on irrelevant.
Quite true! :-)
Especially the part where - as INPLIED - that amateur radio
operators are (miraculously) ALL capable of actual emergency
communications and ready (at a moment's notice) to "save lives
and property."
All of that intimation is very nice, warm, and fuzzy self-promotion
for what is basically a HOBBY pursuit, a recreation, something done
by individuals for their own pleasure. Tall Tales of derring-do
(and usually of daring doo-doo).
>> For an interesting coomparison, why don't we come up with the ratio of
>> say EMT's to the general population. Yet somehow they do their jobs.
>
>I know, but that is his "obtuse point". I doesn't matter the actual number
>of trained operators, just the number of radio sets.
Okay, now YOU show the rest of us how many radio amateurs are
"trained" in emergency communications.
Please, NO more tall tales of derring-doo-doo as federally-
authorized radio AMATEURS, implied or otherwise. Be specific.
When push comes to shove, you CANNOT show those numbers of radio
amateurs. You are bluffing your way through this non-argument.
All that is left is an estimation of the various radios used in
the various radio services in the USA...by the Electronic
Industries Association, the Census Bureau, Department of the
Interior, Department of Transportaion, NTIA, etc., etc.
Continuous denigration of Citizens Band Radio Service doesn't
make your case. CB has been around for 47 years...by federal
authority...there are millions of CB transceivers on the highways
and in the transportation industry. You can't "prove" that CB
sets are any fraction of "modified," "illegal," "not in use" or
much of anything else for "statistics."
Neither can you "prove" that licensed amateur radio operators
are ALL or even partly "trained in emergency communications" or
are automatically some kind of "life savers." A "Life Saver"
is a name of a candy, a sucker without a stick. Try not to
schtick us as if we were suckers.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
> amateur radios.
Something you sure can't seem to master.
Dan/W4NTI
"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@this.ten> wrote in message
news:Pqidnfd8n6w...@gbronline.com...
And never will. He tried once back in the 50s, couldn't pass the CW, and
ever since has bitched and moaned like a little baby.
Deep down inside he always wanted to be a ham, but was just never "up to
snuff". And now with all his bluster he blames everyone else that did
manage to get a ham license.
He is a pathetic loser.
Dan/W4NTI
an_old_friend
that is a lie never seen Lenn blame me for anything of the sort
LenAn...@ieee.org
2005 15:58
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Very, very weak troll you cast.
Buzziebaby, you just don't understand that this isn't a playground
outside a public school. Quit acting like a none-year-old.
About 53 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to fully operate
high-power HF transmitters WITHOUT needing any "license" nor any
morse code "skills."
About 49 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to pass, in one
sitting, an FCC First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) license
(done in an FCC Chicago Field Office).
About 45 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to be given
circuit design responsibility by my employer...and successfully
continued an entire CAREER in radio-electronics design.
Although retired from regular hours, I still do some design
work (for money usually).
About 32 years ago I had "mastered" enough engineering
knowledge to get affidavit statements acknowledging that from
three IEEE members at work so that I could join the IEEE...which
is a Professional Association of electrical and electronic
engineers world-wide. I am now a Life Member of the IEEE and
EARNED it. [IEEE Life Members do not pay "extra" for that
title nor do they pay any membership dues to the IEEE] Note
the "signature" address at the bottom of this message.
Worse yet, you poor Olde-Tyme "video hero," I've been both a
contributor and an Associate Editor for Ham Radio magazine
without having any amateur radio license nor even meeting any
of the regular staff at HR (my work sold itself). I've been
a co-owner of a PLMRS base-mobile station (and its technically
responsible signature person with the FCC) as part of a
business venture. During the course of my CAREER, I've had
responsibility for transmitting on frequencies ranging from
VLF on up through all EM spectrum bands to 25 GHz. Not only
that, I once worked a station ON the Moon (none of this
"moonbounce" stuff). I've handled more different modulations
and more different frequencies than hams are ALLOWED to use,
all legally and all responsibly...and NEVER ONCE have I had
to know or use any morsemanship "skills."
Brewster Rockit, Space Guy, maybe YOU want to stay regressed
at kiddie age and play like a big, strong, macho morseman in
the HF sandbox with other AMATEURS. Watch out, mommie may
take away your toys if you misbehanve. Us grown-ups will just
look on and smile at kiddie actions in a make-believe fantasy
of "radio expertise" through ham radio.
Kiss my yes and stick it in yer I/O port...
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@this.ten> wrote in message
>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
>>> amateur radios.
>
>> Something you sure can't seem to master.
>
>And never will. He tried once back in the 50s, couldn't pass the CW, and
>ever since has bitched and moaned like a little baby.
Incorrect. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Tried to learn morse for 13 WPM back
in the early 60s, reached about 8 WPM, and GAVE UP. I DIDN'T NEED
any of that morseman nonsense for a "recreational hobby." Hadn't
been required to know that for three years at a major military
radio station working on HF, haven't needed it since.
>Deep down inside he always wanted to be a ham, but was just never "up to
>snuff".
I've never been into snuff. Tobacco isn't good for you.
Neither have I "always wanted to be a ham." I wanted to be a
professional as well as an amateur hobbyist...and did that...
am still doing it. It paid off.
> And now with all his bluster he blames everyone else that did
>manage to get a ham license.
"Bluster?!?" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What you term "bluster" is from your own ignorance about radio
(restricted as it is to amateur practice)...I call it
CONFIDENCE based on EXPERIENCE. IN radio, sweetums, not just
fooling around pretending to be an "expert" morseman long after
the rest of the world gave up on that mode.
The only "blame" YOU get is for that IGNORANCE you display and
the southern-fried bigotry on "radio" you display regularly.
The only "blame" anyone gets from me is due to the same factors
that THEY display, ranging from simple stupidity to outright
sociopathy (displayed by the Tennessee Talibanian).
>He is a pathetic loser.
Poor baby...still doing your trash-mouth schtick are you?
"Loser?" I've had a nice CAREER in radio-electronics and that
is still going on - when I want to work (don't have to). No
liens on my possessions, money available, time free to do as I
wish, and I'm happily married to my high school sweetheart.
"Loser" in WHAT? :-)
What is "winning" to you, Dannieboy? Fantasizing you are some
kind of "radio pioneer" championing the airwaves with morse?
Regressing to none-year-old levels on a school playground?
Being as obnoxious as you can be? Weird sort of "winning."
Kiss my yes and stick it in yer I/O port.
Cmd Buzz Corey
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
> From: N7ZZT - Eric Oyen on Fri 15 Jul 2005 00:21
>
>>Michael Coslo wrote:
>>> N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote:
>>>> Frank Gilliland wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>Once again, why is it irrelevant?
>>>>
>>>> I see you snipped the answer to that one. read it again.
>>>>
>>>> better yet, I'll explain in greater detail:
>>>> 1. of the 20 million odd cb radios floating around in the US and other
>>>> places the US controlls: 35% of them would not meet type acceptance
>>>> (due to illegal modification), 40% go unused (due to lack of interest,
>>>> noise, storage or breakdown). The remainder are often in the hands of
>>>> either children or adults who have virtually no training in their
>>>> proper use.
>
> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
> amateur radios. [ham radio "in the hands of children" etc.]
AND, if you';; note, they have DEMONSTRATED that they are competant radio
ops (even at such a young age. note though, these are the exceptions, not
the general rule (in so far as cb ops are concerned). Usually in such cases
where a child op is involved in ham radio, there is always an adult not far
away to offer assistance should things get out of hand. find that on cb?
NO!
>
> Those "statistics" are of dubious value since NO source is
> referenced.
The source itself *is* the CB band (what with all the ops hawking their
wares, advertising "multi-pill amps", "broadbanded radios" and the like.
take a good look at whats advertised in such places as the local CB ships,
some of the radio mail order houses and the like).
>
>>>> that leaves us with somewhat less than 1% (and there is even a question
>>>> as to that figure). now, how many of those sets are active on a daily
>>>> basis?
>
> Drive the highways of the USA sometime and you will find out...:-)
beem there, done that. in any local area (range under 50 miles), you might
hear 3-500 conversations across the band (on a busy day) and when the skip
is in, you can't tell because of all the noise (hetrodynes, etc).
>
>>>> How many of those sets are being used by someone who has, at least
>>>> a good knowledge of the rules and regulations governing their use?
>
> Define this "good knowledge."
Studied, read, applied to their radio operations, monthly drills, etc.
>
> Are you going to say that passing a federal test last year, a few
> years ago, or even many years ago constitutes "good knowledge of
> the CURRENT regulations of amateur radio?
its better than passing no test at all... but passing a test is only part of
it (as I had pointed out much earlier in this thread). there is training by
EOC professionals on a volunteer basis, ride along with police/fire, public
service events, disaster drills (we have the Palo Verde nuclear power plant
drills here 4x a year) and we get full on emergency work during both the
summer fire/monsoon seasons and the winter rainy season (where floods can
result). We here in Arizona are kept very busy (as are those in tornado
alley, the quake/fire/flood zones of the west coast and hurricane alley of
the southeast).
>
>>>> how
>>>> many of those actual operators are actually trained in some disaster
>>>> relief by accredited agencies?
>
> So, SHOW YOUR WORK in regards to how many licensed amateurs are
> "actually trained in some disaster reflief" by anyone but their
> own imagination?
imaginations? gee, I think you missed it. I said "accredited agencies" (like
an EOC, FEMA, red cross, and others). now some disaster relief ops are
"common sense" but when it comes to handling emergency traffic for backup
to a failing telco system, training is a must! There is no way around that
fact of this point.
>
> Sorry, but all those "news" stories on the ARRL website don't
> prove much other than the league is very busy promoting itself
> first, amateur radio second.
arrl wasn't the omly source. try cnn, fox, abc, cbs, nbc, api, reuters,
etc..... what about all those sources (the malaysian tsunami was an
excellent example of hams in action (and not a single cb operator was ever
mentioned).
>
> Now, if there were so "many" amateur radio operators "actually
> trained in some disaster relief," WHY would the ARRL be offering
> those "training classes" in same?
because, training requires being refreshed if one doesn't use it often.
also, new techniques and new ideas are also brought forth in such classes.
man, you just don't think before asking questions, do you?
>
>>>> why don't you give me some really good hard data to work with?
>>>>
>>>> whats your real problem with ham radio?
>>>
>>> The odd thing is that while we've gotten a breakdown on the number of
>>> Ham radio operators as compared to the population of the US (as if every
>>> person in the US is going to have traffic for every Ham op) we now go in
>>> complete reverse - miraculously every CB rig is going to be pressed into
>>> service in time of need. 20 million radios ready to save life and
>>> property.
>>>
>>> This whole part of the argument is weird and borders on irrelevant.
>
> Quite true! :-)
>
> Especially the part where - as INPLIED - that amateur radio
> operators are (miraculously) ALL capable of actual emergency
> communications and ready (at a moment's notice) to "save lives
> and property."
you are putting words in the mouth that never stated them. "miraculously"?
c'mon!
Let me give you a few good expamples of what I work with here in Arizona:
1. a "stay at home ham" with a complete shack and a backup 10kw UPS can
still be operating even when power is out to significant portions of the
city (it has happened many times here in Arizona)
2. a mobile hamshack with both a 10 kw UPS and a little honda ec-3500
portable generator can setup shop anywhere (prime examples of this are
field day setups, the mobile command center for the MCSO and the last
firebase operations facility for the cave creek complex fire.
3. any ham with more than 2 HT's and plenty of spare batteries to do the
job.
in all these, training is a must (and most here in the phoenix area have
varying degrees of that training.
Just for your edification, we have summer monsoon storms here that can spark
fires (seen the news lately), we carry on with 40 public service events
during the course of the year, have 4 major disaster drills and deal with
winter floods and summer flash floods every year. the only places busier
than us are those with a tornado in progress or the hurricane alley states.
>
> All of that intimation is very nice, warm, and fuzzy self-promotion
> for what is basically a HOBBY pursuit, a recreation, something done
> by individuals for their own pleasure. Tall Tales of derring-do
> (and usually of daring doo-doo).
uh? "intimation"? where the hell did that come from?
>
>>> For an interesting coomparison, why don't we come up with the ratio of
>>> say EMT's to the general population. Yet somehow they do their jobs.
>>
>>I know, but that is his "obtuse point". I doesn't matter the actual number
>>of trained operators, just the number of radio sets.
>
> Okay, now YOU show the rest of us how many radio amateurs are
> "trained" in emergency communications.
come off it. that point hashed and rehashed already. go back and read it.
>
> Please, NO more tall tales of derring-doo-doo as federally-
> authorized radio AMATEURS, implied or otherwise. Be specific.
what tall tails? what daring-do? what implications? C'mon man, you accused,
now back it up!
>
> When push comes to shove, you CANNOT show those numbers of radio
> amateurs. You are bluffing your way through this non-argument.
I wasn't the one that started this F.U.D campaigh.... but for numbers?
Arizona (the state I live in), we had, over the last 5 years: 48 major fires
(A good example). on the last fire (cave creek-complex), we had 300 hams
working at various points (some in the field, others at firebase command
and a some at the EOC for the state (located in phoenix)). The average time
spent on site for each ham was 12 out of every 24 hours (which means we had
around the clock coverage). A lot of these hams have other emergency
service qualifications as well (a large p[ortion of them also work in
various capacities for the Sheriff's Dept as either volunteers or paid
employees, others in the private sector and a few (like me) who have time
on their hands due to either retirement or disability. That was just 1
fire. we had several others burning across the state that also had hams
involved, PLUS there were 3 public service events concurrent to this that
had a fair number of hams working.
Now, I don't know how many hams live here in the state, but over the last 2
months, we had upwards of 3100 hams working any number of these events *in
total*. I would have to ask the ARRL Liason how many hams are resident in
the state. However, as a good guess, we probably had a 10% turnout among
the ham community. Thats just the state of Arizona and only the last 2
months. these are HARD FACTS that can be researched by you (and I'll just
bet you'll hem and haw and claim its all fluff and never bother to look it
up for yourself just like you always have <you and some others>!).
>
> All that is left is an estimation of the various radios used in
> the various radio services in the USA...by the Electronic
> Industries Association, the Census Bureau, Department of the
> Interior, Department of Transportaion, NTIA, etc., etc.
yeah yeah yeah...... still, we hams make *better* use of our gear than any
CB operator can, because we are more organized and have a system in place
to deal with such things. we hams are a valuable asset to FEMA, NTIA,
Various depts of the military, etc. you can't say that about CB no matter
how hard you try.
>
> Continuous denigration of Citizens Band Radio Service doesn't
> make your case. CB has been around for 47 years...by federal
> authority...there are millions of CB transceivers on the highways
> and in the transportation industry. You can't "prove" that CB
> sets are any fraction of "modified," "illegal," "not in use" or
> much of anything else for "statistics."
does experience with "citizens band" count? how about 15 years worth (6
years concurrently being a ham too) and at least 12 years AS a ham?
>
> Neither can you "prove" that licensed amateur radio operators
> are ALL or even partly "trained in emergency communications" or
> are automatically some kind of "life savers." A "Life Saver"
> is a name of a candy, a sucker without a stick. Try not to
> schtick us as if we were suckers.
I can prove that at least *SOME* of them are. can you even prove that ANY cb
operators are trained by professionals (such as those at FEMA, any EOC,
NTIA, etc)?
are we trying to impress? looks like braggin to me.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Very, very weak troll you cast.
>
> Buzziebaby, you just don't understand that this isn't a playground
> outside a public school. Quit acting like a none-year-old.
>
> About 53 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to fully operate
> high-power HF transmitters WITHOUT needing any "license" nor any
> morse code "skills."
So did a lot of other folks in the military, so you want a medal or
something?
>
> About 49 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to pass, in one
> sitting, an FCC First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) license
> (done in an FCC Chicago Field Office).
As did I, so you think that is something special?
>
> About 45 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to be given
> circuit design responsibility by my employer...and successfully
> continued an entire CAREER in radio-electronics design.
> Although retired from regular hours, I still do some design
> work (for money usually).
As did a lot of real engineers, so what?
>
> About 32 years ago I had "mastered" enough engineering
> knowledge to get affidavit statements acknowledging that from
> three IEEE members at work so that I could join the IEEE...which
> is a Professional Association of electrical and electronic
> engineers world-wide. I am now a Life Member of the IEEE and
> EARNED it. [IEEE Life Members do not pay "extra" for that
> title nor do they pay any membership dues to the IEEE] Note
> the "signature" address at the bottom of this message.
You think you are the elite of the IEEE? Think again. You are only one
small member of many.
>
> Worse yet, you poor Olde-Tyme "video hero," I've been both a
> contributor and an Associate Editor for Ham Radio magazine
> without having any amateur radio license nor even meeting any
> of the regular staff at HR (my work sold itself). I've been
> a co-owner of a PLMRS base-mobile station (and its technically
> responsible signature person with the FCC) as part of a
> business venture. During the course of my CAREER, I've had
> responsibility for transmitting on frequencies ranging from
> VLF on up through all EM spectrum bands to 25 GHz. Not only
> that, I once worked a station ON the Moon (none of this
> "moonbounce" stuff). I've handled more different modulations
> and more different frequencies than hams are ALLOWED to use,
> all legally and all responsibly...and NEVER ONCE have I had
> to know or use any morsemanship "skills."
>
> Brewster Rockit, Space Guy, maybe YOU want to stay regressed
> at kiddie age and play like a big, strong, macho morseman in
> the HF sandbox with other AMATEURS. Watch out, mommie may
> take away your toys if you misbehanve. Us grown-ups will just
> look on and smile at kiddie actions in a make-believe fantasy
> of "radio expertise" through ham radio.
>
>
Yet with all that bragging, you could never *master* the simple code
required to get a ham license, something that many nine-year-olds have done.
> Kiss my yes and stick it in yer I/O port...
So who's acting like a child on the playground? You know lennieboy, when
you pass on to that big transmitter in the sky, your family can save a
lot of money by just giving you an enema and burying you in a shoe box.
BH
<lennieboys usless drivel deleted>
>
> its better than passing no test at all... but passing a test is only part of
> it (as I had pointed out much earlier in this thread). there is training by
> EOC professionals on a volunteer basis, ride along with police/fire, public
> service events, disaster drills (we have the Palo Verde nuclear power plant
> drills here 4x a year) and we get full on emergency work during both the
> summer fire/monsoon seasons and the winter rainy season (where floods can
> result). We here in Arizona are kept very busy (as are those in tornado
> alley, the quake/fire/flood zones of the west coast and hurricane alley of
> the southeast).
>
> imaginations? gee, I think you missed it. I said "accredited agencies" (like
> an EOC, FEMA, red cross, and others). now some disaster relief ops are
> "common sense" but when it comes to handling emergency traffic for backup
> to a failing telco system, training is a must! There is no way around that
> fact of this point.
>
>
>
> c'mon!
>
> Let me give you a few good expamples of what I work with here in Arizona:
> 1. a "stay at home ham" with a complete shack and a backup 10kw UPS can
> still be operating even when power is out to significant portions of the
> city (it has happened many times here in Arizona)
> 2. a mobile hamshack with both a 10 kw UPS and a little honda ec-3500
> portable generator can setup shop anywhere (prime examples of this are
> field day setups, the mobile command center for the MCSO and the last
> firebase operations facility for the cave creek complex fire.
> 3. any ham with more than 2 HT's and plenty of spare batteries to do the
> job.
>
> in all these, training is a must (and most here in the phoenix area have
> varying degrees of that training.
>
> Just for your edification, we have summer monsoon storms here that can spark
> fires (seen the news lately), we carry on with 40 public service events
> during the course of the year, have 4 major disaster drills and deal with
> winter floods and summer flash floods every year. the only places busier
> than us are those with a tornado in progress or the hurricane alley states.
>
>
> Arizona (the state I live in), we had, over the last 5 years: 48 major fires
> (A good example). on the last fire (cave creek-complex), we had 300 hams
> working at various points (some in the field, others at firebase command
> and a some at the EOC for the state (located in phoenix)). The average time
> spent on site for each ham was 12 out of every 24 hours (which means we had
> around the clock coverage). A lot of these hams have other emergency
> service qualifications as well (a large p[ortion of them also work in
> various capacities for the Sheriff's Dept as either volunteers or paid
> employees, others in the private sector and a few (like me) who have time
> on their hands due to either retirement or disability. That was just 1
> fire. we had several others burning across the state that also had hams
> involved, PLUS there were 3 public service events concurrent to this that
> had a fair number of hams working.
>
> Now, I don't know how many hams live here in the state, but over the last 2
> months, we had upwards of 3100 hams working any number of these events *in
> total*. I would have to ask the ARRL Liason how many hams are resident in
> the state. However, as a good guess, we probably had a 10% turnout among
> the ham community. Thats just the state of Arizona and only the last 2
> months. these are HARD FACTS that can be researched by you (and I'll just
> bet you'll hem and haw and claim its all fluff and never bother to look it
> up for yourself just like you always have <you and some others>!).
>
> yeah yeah yeah...... still, we hams make *better* use of our gear than any
> CB operator can, because we are more organized and have a system in place
> to deal with such things. we hams are a valuable asset to FEMA, NTIA,
> Various depts of the military, etc. you can't say that about CB no matter
> how hard you try.
>
But Eric, all that means absolutly nothing because you don't belong to
the IEEE (at least in lennieboy's eyes).
N2...@aol.com
Well, Dan, that may be how it seems to you, but here's another
viewpoint.
There's a certain kind of person for whom "book learning" comes
easily, but for whom practical skills take a lot of effort. You've
probably run into people like that in your life.
IOW, they may be able to quickly and easily learn and tell you
all about baseball, but learning to actually throw/hit/catch
one requires a *lot* of practice and effort on their part. They
*can* learn to do those skills, it just takes a lot more effort
than they're used to putting out to learn "book knowledge".
Such folks often become highly critical of activities that
involve skills they find hard to learn. The classic case is
the kid who makes fun of sports as being pointless, and
athletes as being stupid, overrated, etc.
Technology-related activities are a magnet for such folks,
because a lot of technology involves replacing human skill
and effort with machines, and they can symbolically "win"
by pointing out how much "better" machines can do something.
For example, it's possible to build a pitching machine that
can throw a baseball at speeds no human can achieve,
and the pitching machine can do it far longer than any
human pitcher. So, they argue, there's no reason to value
the skill and achievement of someone who can throw a
fastball, say, 100 mph, because a machine can do that and a lot more.
The world record in the 26.22 mile marathon is two hours and some
minutes, equating to a bit under 13 mph. Almost anyone can beat
that record if they're allowed to use a car....
Of course the person who thinks that way has missed the entire
point.
73 de Jim, N2EY
K4YZ
> From: "Cmd Buzz Corey" on Fri 15 Jul
> 2005 15:58
>
> >LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
> >> amateur radios.
> >
> >Something you sure can't seem to master.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Very, very weak troll you cast.
>
> Buzziebaby, you just don't understand that this isn't a playground
> outside a public school. Quit acting like a none-year-old.
The point remains...
You do not hold either an operator's license or station license in
the Amateur Radio service.
> About 53 years ago...(SNIP)
YadaYadaYada...
No license today.
> About 49 years ago...(SNIP)
YadaYadaYada
No license today.
> About 45 years ago...(SNIP)
YadaYadaYada
No license today.
> About 32 years ago...(SNIP)
YadaYadaYada
No license today.
> Worse yet, you poor Olde-Tyme "video hero," I've been both a
> contributor and an Associate Editor for Ham Radio magazine
> without having any amateur radio license nor even meeting any
> of the regular staff at HR (my work sold itself).
And that magazine subsequently went belly-up with people like you
on the masthead.
Not a single one of any of your "articles" as ever been part and
parcel of ANY project in ANY Amateur Radio magazine or forum.
In other words...Jim Fisk should have spent his money on a
MEANINGFUL investment...Not you. Maybe then "Ham Radio" would still be
in publication.
> I've been a co-owner of a PLMRS base-mobile station...(SNIP)
As could any other persons WITHOUT the technical credentials)
> Not only that, I once worked a station ON the Moon (none of this
> "moonbounce" stuff).
No, you didn't.
You may have remotely controlled an object, but you did nopt
"work" a station on the moon.
Whoopie doo....You pushed a button in Pasadena and made the robot
go "beepbeep".
That's about as impressive as those ceremonial "plungers" they use
to let a dignitary "blow up" some structure for a new public works
project.
> I've handled more different modulations
> and more different frequencies than hams are ALLOWED to use,
> all legally and all responsibly...and NEVER ONCE have I had
> to know or use any morsemanship "skills."
And never once was ANY of that done in a radio station YOU built,
on modes YOU selected and at times of YOUR choosing.
Your GROL is ONLY valid while operating a facility with an FCC
STATION license or appropriate STA. Said station license specifes the
power, mode, frequencies, etc.
> Kiss my yes and stick it in yer I/O port...
You're still unlicensed...still have NO practical experience, and
STILL living out your "deeds" of five decades ago.
> LenIloveLivingInThePastB...@ieee.org
Putz.
Steve, K4YZ
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: N7ZZT - Eric Oyen on Fri 15 Jul 2005 00:21
>>
>>>Michael Coslo wrote:
>>>> N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote:
>>>>> Frank Gilliland wrote:
>> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
>> amateur radios. [ham radio "in the hands of children" etc.]
>
>AND, if you';; note, they have DEMONSTRATED that they are competant radio
>ops (even at such a young age. note though, these are the exceptions, not
>the general rule (in so far as cb ops are concerned). Usually in such cases
>where a child op is involved in ham radio, there is always an adult not far
>away to offer assistance should things get out of hand. find that on cb?
>NO!
NOT a good answer to either. You've NOT "proved" anything other
than you can make a speculation.
"...there is always an adult not far away..." for ALL amateur
radio? Tsk, tsk. That's like saying all kids obey their
parents when the parents aren't around. Disproven every day in
the USA by PDs' and EMTs' visits to homes.
In any other venue, the "source" for those statements would be
called bragging.
>> Those "statistics" are of dubious value since NO source is
>> referenced.
>
>The source itself *is* the CB band (what with all the ops hawking their
>wares, advertising "multi-pill amps", "broadbanded radios" and the like.
>take a good look at whats advertised in such places as the local CB ships,
>some of the radio mail order houses and the like).
Marketing media is your "source?" Tsk, tsk. In that case, open
any newspaper and read the ads instead of the news for "real
news." :-)
>>>>> that leaves us with somewhat less than 1% (and there is even a question
>>>>> as to that figure). now, how many of those sets are active on a daily
>>>>> basis?
>>
>> Drive the highways of the USA sometime and you will find out...:-)
>
>beem there, done that. in any local area (range under 50 miles), you might
>hear 3-500 conversations across the band (on a busy day) and when the skip
>is in, you can't tell because of all the noise (hetrodynes, etc).
So, in case of "real emergency" (meteor impact, alien invasion?)
everybody on CB going to be "on" and heterodyning? Couldn't prove
it by me since I've never "been there, done that" for any meteor
impact or alien invasion. :-)
In going 6000 miles per trip at least twice in the last five
years I've not heard a lot of simultaneous convos along the
highways. Lots of "smokey" spottings, a few breakdowns of
vehicles, grass fires suddenly in one area, but not a lot of
"illegal" operation. [I can understand where some die-hards
would think non-morse on HF was considered "illegal" and a fate
too terrible for words if those users did not take an official
TEST to authorize their use of HF...]
>>
>>>>> How many of those sets are being used by someone who has, at least
>>>>> a good knowledge of the rules and regulations governing their use?
>>
>> Define this "good knowledge."
>
>Studied, read, applied to their radio operations, monthly drills, etc.
"WORKED real HARD" at it? Get an endorsement from the "ham
community" for showing your "dedication and committment?" :-)
Spent 8 hours a day as a "ham" six days a week? THAT sounds
like "work" to me. Work that one gets paid for...
>> Are you going to say that passing a federal test last year, a few
>> years ago, or even many years ago constitutes "good knowledge of
>> the CURRENT regulations of amateur radio?
>
>its better than passing no test at all... but passing a test is only part of
>it (as I had pointed out much earlier in this thread).
Tsk. The federal government does not require a TEST for a
LICENSE to operate on the 40 channels of CB. As a citizen, you
CAN petition your government for a redress of this grievance of
yours if you wish. CB has NEVER had a "test" even when they
did license such operation.
> there is training by
>EOC professionals on a volunteer basis, ride along with police/fire, public
>service events, disaster drills (we have the Palo Verde nuclear power plant
>drills here 4x a year) and we get full on emergency work during both the
>summer fire/monsoon seasons and the winter rainy season (where floods can
>result).
Sounds like you want a full-time JOB doing emergency stuff.
Jobs involve PAYMENT for services rendered...and that isn't
permitted in AMATEUR radio.
Speaking of "Palo Verde" ('green stick' in Spanish), the L.A.
area just had a grass fire in the Palos Verdes Penninsula a few
miles south of LAX. Went right up to the edge of big homes.
Professionals handled it quickly, put it out, evacuated about
300 folks as a precaution. Not a "real emergency" like war,
meteor impact, or alien invasion. [can't have everything...]
> We here in Arizona are kept very busy (as are those in tornado
>alley, the quake/fire/flood zones of the west coast and hurricane alley of
>the southeast).
Things are tough all over, except wherever I'm writing from, ey?
>>>>> how
>>>>> many of those actual operators are actually trained in some disaster
>>>>> relief by accredited agencies?
>>
>> So, SHOW YOUR WORK in regards to how many licensed amateurs are
>> "actually trained in some disaster reflief" by anyone but their
>> own imagination?
>
>imaginations? gee, I think you missed it.
Noooooo...I NAILED it. Show your "badge."
> I said "accredited agencies" (like
>an EOC, FEMA, red cross, and others). now some disaster relief ops are
>"common sense" but when it comes to handling emergency traffic for backup
>to a failing telco system, training is a must! There is no way around that
>fact of this point.
Training and drilling is something I've brought up since I've
been here. I've pointed out the California Auxilliary
Communications Service as a model but have been met with lots
and lots of geographic bigotry from easterner herohams. The
California ACS doesn't require any ham license to participate
and neither do they rely on just amateur radio; they will use
EVERY means possible to effect communications.
But, you bring up the hoary old myth of "telco systems FAIL"
in real emergencies. :-) During the '94 Northridge Quake
here, the telco SYSTEM never "failed." PDs and FDs were
connected via leased lines that never go through telco switchers
and thus aren't subject to overload...the PDs and FDs rolled as
required. Got an incoming call from my uncle in Florida early
that first day afternoon...no problem calling IN via POTS.
VHF-UHF mobiles were very busy for PDs, FDs, medical rescue,
utilities (especially them), and construction services. A mere
53 or so dead, many more injured, total electrical power outage
for 10 million. I guess it wasn't a "real emergency" such as
war, meteor impact, or alien invasion. [conspicuously absent
(at least to me at the time) was any amateur emergency comms]
In truth I did NOT monitor CB activity locally...too busy later
on with utility/construction service radio stuff. However, I've
been told by those who are active in CB that the channels were
"strangely quiet" for hours after. Must have been that CB folks
were understanding the nature of an emergency! Imagine that,
rotten-dirty-scoundrel CBers acting decent and helpful! [what
is the world coming to?]
>> Sorry, but all those "news" stories on the ARRL website don't
>> prove much other than the league is very busy promoting itself
>> first, amateur radio second.
>
>arrl wasn't the omly source. try cnn, fox, abc, cbs, nbc, api, reuters,
>etc..... what about all those sources (the malaysian tsunami was an
>excellent example of hams in action (and not a single cb operator was ever
>mentioned).
"Hams in action?!?" By golly, I've just GOT to get a set of NEMOS
(NEtwork MOnitor CRTs in old broadcasting parlance) in the house
to see all those "hams in action!" Missed them entirely on TV cable
(about 220 channels) here in the last decade! One of my neighbors
up the street works for local Channel 11 (journalist behind the
camera, them what writes up what the talking heads talk about) and
he never saw any "hams in action!"
Does Malaysia have "CB?" I don't know and don't much care. I did
see LOTS and LOTS of U.S. military "in action" on TV...for once
saving lives instead of destroying them in the recent Tsunami
areas. [military has lots of good communications...as does the
National Guard units]
>> Now, if there were so "many" amateur radio operators "actually
>> trained in some disaster relief," WHY would the ARRL be offering
>> those "training classes" in same?
>
>because, training requires being refreshed if one doesn't use it often.
No kidding!?! Duhhhhh....whut I bin sayin' in here afore? :-)
>also, new techniques and new ideas are also brought forth in such classes.
"New ways to send morse code" by "hams in action?" :-)
Morse code was first used commercially in 1844. The only "new
technique" was the changeover from all-numbers to letters,
numbers, and some punctuation in "morse code" a few years after.
In 1896 there was the first "new idea" to use radio in place of
wire lines to send morse code! [breakthrough!]
What is "new" in emergency communications? Do you have some
kind of invention supplanting radio?!?!? A "new language" to
use?
How about just KEEPING UP TO DATE WITH EVERYONE ELSE in the
local emergency action organizations? Know the organization,
know the centers, the coordinators, who is responsible for what?
>man, you just don't think before asking questions, do you?
That's the fault of ALL who disagree with your noble words in
here...they are all "stupid, ignorant, slothful, and probably
have underarm odor."
By the way, it is customary in the written English language
to capitalize the beginning letter of each word. That's not
a "new way" to write in non-morse modes. "e.e.cummings" tried
that decades ago but didn't get far...
>>>> This whole part of the argument is weird and borders on irrelevant.
>>
>> Quite true! :-)
>>
>> Especially the part where - as INPLIED - that amateur radio
>> operators are (miraculously) ALL capable of actual emergency
>> communications and ready (at a moment's notice) to "save lives
>> and property."
>
>you are putting words in the mouth that never stated them. "miraculously"?
>c'mon!
Awwwww...ain't that just AWFUL?
Tsk, my bad, accusing a "ham in action" of something he ain't done.
>Let me give you a few good expamples of what I work with here in Arizona:
>1. a "stay at home ham" with a complete shack and a backup 10kw UPS can
>still be operating even when power is out to significant portions of the
>city (it has happened many times here in Arizona)
>2. a mobile hamshack with both a 10 kw UPS and a little honda ec-3500
>portable generator can setup shop anywhere (prime examples of this are
>field day setups, the mobile command center for the MCSO and the last
>firebase operations facility for the cave creek complex fire.
>3. any ham with more than 2 HT's and plenty of spare batteries to do the
>job.
Good on them. However, that is totally against the grain of others
in here (of the eastern persuasion) who boast of getting on "the
bands" (HF) costing less than $100 in "recycled radio parts." :-)
Hams #1 and #2 have spent a bit more than the $6000 for a full-on
DZ Sienna to be on the market in September. :-)
#3 category is obviously NOT a "real ham" if not able to work HF
with "CW." All "real hams" have to know how to "work CW." :-)
Well, all that you've given is very fine for your area. Easterners
and "southerners" (southeastern states of the USA) complain about
"not being able to afford all that." Tsk. Here in the about 5000
square mile area (give or take) of Greater Los Angeles we have a
professional organization of many PDs, FDs, medical, etc. that
handle that 24/7 for any of the "minor" emergencies we've had
(brush fire confligrations, earthquakes, bad wind storms, etc.).
Not like northern California where we've already had one coastal
town destroyed by a Tsunami.
>in all these, training is a must (and most here in the phoenix area have
>varying degrees of that training.
>
>Just for your edification, we have summer monsoon storms here that can spark
>fires (seen the news lately), we carry on with 40 public service events
>during the course of the year, have 4 major disaster drills and deal with
>winter floods and summer flash floods every year. the only places busier
>than us are those with a tornado in progress or the hurricane alley states.
Your emergencies are always better/worse than others' emergencies?
>> All of that intimation is very nice, warm, and fuzzy self-promotion
>> for what is basically a HOBBY pursuit, a recreation, something done
>> by individuals for their own pleasure. Tall Tales of derring-do
>> (and usually of daring doo-doo).
>
>uh? "intimation"? where the hell did that come from?
Based on the "hams in action" all over, busy jawing up a storm.
Sounds vaguely familiar to the bar at the old Legion Hall
towards the end of Happy Hour. :-)
>>>> For an interesting coomparison, why don't we come up with the ratio of
>>>> say EMT's to the general population. Yet somehow they do their jobs.
>>>
>>>I know, but that is his "obtuse point". I doesn't matter the actual number
>>>of trained operators, just the number of radio sets.
>>
>> Okay, now YOU show the rest of us how many radio amateurs are
>> "trained" in emergency communications.
>
>come off it. that point hashed and rehashed already. go back and read it.
Can't do that yet...I'm still going through old news videotape
looking for "hams in action" over the last decade. :-)
>> Please, NO more tall tales of derring-doo-doo as federally-
>> authorized radio AMATEURS, implied or otherwise. Be specific.
>
>what tall tails? what daring-do? what implications? C'mon man, you accused,
>now back it up!
Tsk, I've given more real stuff than you've put forth as
generalities. :-)
Stuff like (others) saying ham radio "saves lives" or yourself
on "hams in action." News put out by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, API,
Reuters, etc., etc., etc. :-) Documentaries and special
news shows on TV cable or broadcast networks on amateur radio
being so wonderful, humanitarian, etc...and then the opposite
side of the coin where CB is so terribly evil that it is
next to worthless, should never have been born 47 years ago,
etc., etc., etc.
>> When push comes to shove, you CANNOT show those numbers of radio
>> amateurs. You are bluffing your way through this non-argument.
>
>I wasn't the one that started this F.U.D campaigh.... but for numbers?
>
>Arizona (the state I live in), we had, over the last 5 years: 48 major fires
>(A good example). on the last fire (cave creek-complex), we had 300 hams
>working at various points (some in the field, others at firebase command
>and a some at the EOC for the state (located in phoenix)). The average time
>spent on site for each ham was 12 out of every 24 hours (which means we had
>around the clock coverage). A lot of these hams have other emergency
>service qualifications as well (a large p[ortion of them also work in
>various capacities for the Sheriff's Dept as either volunteers or paid
>employees, others in the private sector and a few (like me) who have time
>on their hands due to either retirement or disability. That was just 1
>fire. we had several others burning across the state that also had hams
>involved, PLUS there were 3 public service events concurrent to this that
>had a fair number of hams working.
>
>Now, I don't know how many hams live here in the state, but over the last 2
>months, we had upwards of 3100 hams working any number of these events *in
>total*. I would have to ask the ARRL Liason how many hams are resident in
>the state. However, as a good guess, we probably had a 10% turnout among
>the ham community. Thats just the state of Arizona and only the last 2
>months. these are HARD FACTS that can be researched by you (and I'll just
>bet you'll hem and haw and claim its all fluff and never bother to look it
>up for yourself just like you always have <you and some others>!).
Tsk, you are getting all angry and huffing and stuff here. Cool it.
That's all GOOD WORKS that you and other AZ hams are doing, no
doubt about it. Problem is, it's about the southwest USA and
the easterners don't want to be bothered with it. I understand
the problems faced with natural disasters, living in a different
part of the southwest, but we do have similar fire problems.
Here we also have earthquakes which the easterners don't think
are much...:-)
>> All that is left is an estimation of the various radios used in
>> the various radio services in the USA...by the Electronic
>> Industries Association, the Census Bureau, Department of the
>> Interior, Department of Transportaion, NTIA, etc., etc.
>
>yeah yeah yeah...... still, we hams make *better* use of our gear than any
>CB operator can, because we are more organized and have a system in place
>to deal with such things. we hams are a valuable asset to FEMA, NTIA,
>Various depts of the military, etc. you can't say that about CB no matter
>how hard you try.
NOBODY is as good as the radio amateurs...in THIS grope at least.
>> Continuous denigration of Citizens Band Radio Service doesn't
>> make your case. CB has been around for 47 years...by federal
>> authority...there are millions of CB transceivers on the highways
>> and in the transportation industry. You can't "prove" that CB
>> sets are any fraction of "modified," "illegal," "not in use" or
>> much of anything else for "statistics."
>
>does experience with "citizens band" count? how about 15 years worth (6
>years concurrently being a ham too) and at least 12 years AS a ham?
Not for a normal debate. What you have expressed so far is
YOUR OPINION...of CB.
So...CB has no potential? For 15 years you just accepted it as
you heard it? <shrug>
>> Neither can you "prove" that licensed amateur radio operators
>> are ALL or even partly "trained in emergency communications" or
>> are automatically some kind of "life savers." A "Life Saver"
>> is a name of a candy, a sucker without a stick. Try not to
>> schtick us as if we were suckers.
>
>I can prove that at least *SOME* of them are. can you even prove that ANY cb
>operators are trained by professionals (such as those at FEMA, any EOC,
>NTIA, etc)?
No, but then I'm not trying to paint CB dark, either.
In minor emergencies (windstorm, earthwuake, fires) or real
emergencies (meteor impact, alien invasion), communications by
ANY radio can be valuable. ANY radio, ANY mode. Even wirelines.
The California ACS knows that and acts on it. Where there are
professional organizations to deal with emergencies, they can
and do deal with them, promptly and efficiently. Amateurs CAN
help, but let's face it, most of them are NOT trained in that
any more than evil CBers are "trained." Amateur radio is basically
a HOBBY, a recreational pursuit done for personal pleasure. While
there might be some souls who long to be citizen heroes and get
into amateur radio to "help others in need," the vast majority
get into it for the recreational value, as a HOBBY.
Amateur radio is regulated by the federal government along with
other civil radio services. As such, the regulating agency uses
licensing and testing as a TOOL of regulation. Having that
"federal authorization" of a license is not an academic
certificate nor is it some "special recognition of excellence"
because those that pass tests get "callsigns." Yet so many
hams use that callsign as a "title" or "tribal name" or other
self-imposed grandiose thing. Callsigns don't imply nobility
or expertise, not even with the "highest" class, nor does a
"lower" class imply stupidity or ignorance. Except to others
who USE such callsigns/licenses just to be better than others
(in their own self-propelled ego).
>> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
>are we trying to impress? looks like braggin to me.
"It ain't braggin' if ya done it!" is a misquote of a baseball
pitcher's remark used in here by Mr. J. Miccolis.
I did it. No brags, no inflations, and that e-mail address can
ONLY be achieved by actual membership in the IEEE, a
professional organization of electrical and electronic engineers.
I'm a Life Member of the IEEE. Been doing radio-electronics
as a hobby since 1947, been doing it as a professional since 1952
and haven't stopped since. Others get angry about that, usually
from resentment at being countered in public replies. No problem
to me. I'll reply anyway. Tough skin developed by doing this
computer-modem communications mode since 1984...:-)
Now, do you want to continue ranting against CB and prettying
up ham radio ("dress to impress") in just a ham radio forum?
There's millions upon millions of USA citizens that don't know
much about "ham radio." The need Your Word on that. [ARRL
can't seem to get the word out, even after decades of trying]
I've been exposed to all kinds of radio communications, done a
lot in different radio services, including the military. I'm
just not that impressed that ham radio is to emergency comms
as Mother Theresa is to charity work or that CB is the Antichrist
of the EM spectrum. Experience hasn't shown me either. :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
20:21
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Very, very weak troll you cast.
>>
>> Buzziebaby, you just don't understand that this isn't a playground
>> outside a public school. Quit acting like a none-year-old.
>>
>> About 53 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to fully operate
>> high-power HF transmitters WITHOUT needing any "license" nor any
>> morse code "skills."
>
>So did a lot of other folks in the military, so you want a medal or
>something?
No, I still have my Good Conduct Ribbon. :-)
>> About 49 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to pass, in one
>> sitting, an FCC First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) license
>> (done in an FCC Chicago Field Office).
>
>As did I, so you think that is something special?
For this Grope, yet, because I didn't walk to the Field Office
barefoot in the freezing winter, uphill both ways!
I took the train. 90 miles. :-)
>>
>> About 45 years ago I "mastered" enough knowledge to be given
>> circuit design responsibility by my employer...and successfully
>> continued an entire CAREER in radio-electronics design.
>> Although retired from regular hours, I still do some design
>> work (for money usually).
>
>As did a lot of real engineers, so what?
So what indeed. :-) To hear tell, all of these Mighty Macho
Morsemen WORKED HARD at ham radio, 8 hours a day, 6 days a week
to show their "dedication and committment to the amateur
community!" :-)
>> About 32 years ago I had "mastered" enough engineering
>> knowledge to get affidavit statements acknowledging that from
>> three IEEE members at work so that I could join the IEEE...which
>> is a Professional Association of electrical and electronic
>> engineers world-wide. I am now a Life Member of the IEEE and
>> EARNED it. [IEEE Life Members do not pay "extra" for that
>> title nor do they pay any membership dues to the IEEE] Note
>> the "signature" address at the bottom of this message.
>
>You think you are the elite of the IEEE? Think again. You are only one
>small member of many.
250,000 (more or less) members of IEEE internationally.
Do I think I'm in the "elite?!?!?" Nah. Never did. :-)
Of course, in this group, anyone knowing more than Ohm's Law
(of Resistance) is considered on par with "rocket scientists!"
>Yet with all that bragging, you could never *master* the simple code
>required to get a ham license, something that many nine-year-olds have done.
Oooooo! Ooooooo! "Nine-year-olds have done it!" :-)
"*Master*!!!" Wow! Love those words you misuse. :-)
Hey, let's all regress to being nine-year-olds and do morse code!
>> Kiss my yes and stick it in yer I/O port...
>
>So who's acting like a child on the playground?
Well, this grope IS a "playground" and you certainly are childish!
> You know lennieboy, when
>you pass on to that big transmitter in the sky, your family can save a
>lot of money by just giving you an enema and burying you in a shoe box.
Are you revealing secrets of YOUR family? :-)
Kiss my yes and stick it in yer I/O port...
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> Oooooo! Ooooooo! "Nine-year-olds have done it!" :-)
Yep, and you can't.
>
>
> Well, this grope IS a "playground" and you certainly are childish!
>
What is a grope? So what are you doing in the 'playground'? You must
consider yourself to be pretty childish as well.
Dan/W4NTI
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1121515612.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the enlightenment Jim. I guess I just don't like Lennie's
attitude. His holier than though approach, and his putting everyone down
that enjoys Morse Code, and ham radio in general.
This flake is not even a licensed Amateur, and yet he keeps on and on about
how stupid, out of touch, people we are.
Personally I wish he would just shut the hell up and go talk with his
engineer buddies and try to impress him.
He don't like us....so leave.
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121467291.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@this.ten> wrote in message
news:nKmdnX1MrIv...@gbronline.com...
LenAn...@ieee.org
><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> an/W4NTI wrote:
>>> "Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@this.ten> wrote in message
>>> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> >> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
>>> >> amateur radios.
>>> >
>>> > Something you sure can't seem to master.
>>>
>>> And never will. He tried once back in the 50s, couldn't pass the CW,
>>> and
>>> ever since has bitched and moaned like a little baby.
>>>
>>> Deep down inside he always wanted to be a ham, but was just never "up to
>>> snuff". And now with all his bluster he blames everyone else that did
>>> manage to get a ham license.
>>>
>>> He is a pathetic loser.
>>
>> Well, Dan, that may be how it seems to you, but here's another
>> viewpoint.
>>
>> There's a certain kind of person for whom "book learning" comes
>> easily, but for whom practical skills take a lot of effort. You've
>> probably run into people like that in your life.
No problem with me...practical skills are just as easy as
"book learning." :-)
>> IOW, they may be able to quickly and easily learn and tell you
>> all about baseball, but learning to actually throw/hit/catch
>> one requires a *lot* of practice and effort on their part. They
>> *can* learn to do those skills, it just takes a lot more effort
>> than they're used to putting out to learn "book knowledge".
One can "learn baseball" by reading a book? :-)
>> Such folks often become highly critical of activities that
>> involve skills they find hard to learn. The classic case is
>> the kid who makes fun of sports as being pointless, and
>> athletes as being stupid, overrated, etc.
To be great in amateur radio one has to be a jock? :-)
>> Technology-related activities are a magnet for such folks,
>> because a lot of technology involves replacing human skill
>> and effort with machines, and they can symbolically "win"
>> by pointing out how much "better" machines can do something.
>> For example, it's possible to build a pitching machine that
>> can throw a baseball at speeds no human can achieve,
>> and the pitching machine can do it far longer than any
>> human pitcher. So, they argue, there's no reason to value
>> the skill and achievement of someone who can throw a
>> fastball, say, 100 mph, because a machine can do that and a lot more.
Well, there ya go, one has to be a JOCK in amateur radio!
Or maybe it's just "showing one's dedication and committment to
the amateur community" by learning how to throw a fastball? :-)
>> The world record in the 26.22 mile marathon is two hours and some
>> minutes, equating to a bit under 13 mph. Almost anyone can beat
>> that record if they're allowed to use a car....
>>
>> Of course the person who thinks that way has missed the entire
>> point.
Tsk, tsk. Jimmie's "point" seems to be ALL about doing
things in amateur radio "simply" and with lots and lots of
manual effort? WORK HARD! Heh heh heh...sado-masochism
arrives as a new class of license in U.S. amateur radio?
>Thanks for the enlightenment Jim.
Goodie, now you know ALL about marathoning and "book larnin'"!
>I guess I just don't like Lennie's attitude.
Poor baby. Did you think yours was universally loved? :-)
> His holier than though approach, and his putting everyone down
>that enjoys Morse Code, and ham radio in general.
Oh, yeah, if'n ya don' lak Jeswald, ya "hate" everything
he likes. :-)
Wow, talk about an EGO PROBLEM, Dannyboy, you got one!
>This flake is not even a licensed Amateur,
...right you are (for once). Now tell us all about how all
who want to enter amateur radio must LOVE and WORK HARD at
morsemanship...emulating the 1930's standards and practices?
...and yet he keeps on and on about how stupid, out of touch,
people we are.
I'm just trying to fix stupid. Sigh. Too big a task for me.
"Ya jes' cain't fix stupid!!!" You seem fix-less, Dannyboy.
>Personally I wish he would just shut the hell up and go talk with his
>engineer buddies and try to impress him.
WHOA! Ya said the WRONG words! Jimmie he no like anyone whut
says "shut up!" :-)
>He don't like us....so leave.
Poor baby. Looking for Love and Respect in here? Tsk.
Are you the "amateur community" all newcomers must show their
"dedication and committment to amateur radio?"
You must be. You keep implying that to love amateur radio is
to love you. Dislike you and all dislike amateur radio. Not
how it goes but you must think that way. Very insular, all
wrapped up in yourself.
So far you ain't said dink about "emergency communications."
You've started up a nice Flame Fest claiming "homie" for you
and your mighty macho morsemen. Good luck on that now...
N2...@aol.com
You're welcome, Dan.
> I guess I just don't like Lennie's attitude.
Consider that his "attitude" may be specifically
designed to get a certain reaction from you or
anyone else who bothers to respond.
> His holier than though approach, and his putting everyone down
> that enjoys Morse Code, and ham radio in general.
> This flake is not even a licensed Amateur, and yet he keeps on > and on about how stupid, out of touch, people we are.
So why bother with him at all, Dan?
Think of how long you've been a ham - all the QSOs, the contests,
the rigs and antennas, etc. Think of how much more fun there is to
be had in the wonderful world of Amateur Radio. Why should one
naysayer get any attention at all from you?
>
> Personally I wish he would just shut the hell up and go
> talk with his engineer buddies and try to impress him.
Perhaps that is not possible. I'm an engineer, and he does
not impress me one bit.
> He don't like us....so leave.
His hobby is wasting time. Your time.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an_old_friend
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Sat 16 Jul 2005 21:31
>
> ><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >> an/W4NTI wrote:
> >>> "Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@this.ten> wrote in message
> >>> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> >>> >> Tsk. Nine-year-old amateur extras have federal RIGHTS to operate
> >>> >> amateur radios.
> >>> >
> >>> > Something you sure can't seem to master.
> >>>
> >>> And never will. He tried once back in the 50s, couldn't pass the CW,
> >>> and
> >>> ever since has bitched and moaned like a little baby.
> >>>
> >>> Deep down inside he always wanted to be a ham, but was just never "up to
> >>> snuff". And now with all his bluster he blames everyone else that did
> >>> manage to get a ham license.
> >>>
> >>> He is a pathetic loser.
> >>
> >> Well, Dan, that may be how it seems to you, but here's another
> >> viewpoint.
> >>
> >> There's a certain kind of person for whom "book learning" comes
> >> easily, but for whom practical skills take a lot of effort. You've
> >> probably run into people like that in your life.
>
break
> No problem with me...practical skills are just as easy as
> "book learning." :-)
might have asked how Morse quilifies as a practical skill
break
> Tsk, tsk. Jimmie's "point" seems to be ALL about doing
> things in amateur radio "simply" and with lots and lots of
> manual effort? WORK HARD! Heh heh heh...sado-masochism
> arrives as a new class of license in U.S. amateur radio?
Corection Lenn Stevie interodcued it back in '98 or '99
KØHB
"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote
> ill offer a few coctection ol boy
WTF is a "coctection" --- does Trojan sell them?