What is the LinLink Project All About.

[dubose at texas.net]

Quoting Harv Nelson <harv.nelson at gmail.com>:

> Hi Walt,
> Hi Rick,
> 
> In the absence of a 6 meter opening and decent propagation on 20 and
> 15 meters, I've been spending my time on these "EmComm" lists and
> discussions.
> 

Glad to have you.

> I'm coming to understand just why I view the proposed systems as
> 
> 1.  A miss-directed use of resources and/or

I don't think its mis-directed, its what the DHS/FEMA asked the ARRL to
provide and in an MOA the ARRL agreed to make a best effort.  Perhaps the ARRL
has just not clearly spelled out the requirement or have yet to decide on how
to properly approach the problem.  The EComm "standard" group was its first
effort and while IMHO a bad start, at least an effort.

And, for the EComms use I work with, and that of several others, we see the
need for such a system and acknowledge that others may not have the same need.
 The U.S. is a BIG land mass.

> 2.  An attempt to assign to the amateur service, tasks it was never
> meant to handle.

Yep...but the ARRL did accept that tasking for us.

> 
> The confusion/dispute for me arises from the definition of "emergency
> communications".  What you folks are calling "EmComm", for me is
> "message handling"... When I use the term "emergency communications",
> I mean something akin to "First Aid communications".

I hear you...and yes, EComms is really what you say.  We think of EMComms as
first responder/immediate response communications...and probbaly will be
voice.  What is really needed is Disaster Intervention/Operations and Disaster
Relief communications.  

Where you get a strange mix of communications is during events such as
hurricanes and rains that will lead to flooding, etc.

> 
> Definitions:
> 
> "First Aid": 
> Immediate and temporary medical assistance given before a doctor arrives.
> 
> "Emergency Communications:"  
> Immediate and temporary communications assistance, provided until the
> normal, usual, and dependable means of communication can be restored.
> 
> When you propose to build a national "EmComm" emergency messaging
> infrastructure, what you propose is a function of GOVERNMENT.    It is
> NOT the function of a group of widely dispersed amateur hobbyists who
> have widely divergent interests and capabilities ... Nor, is it a
> function of their national ARRL organization.

Yes...it is a function of government to provide it...and their organizating a
citizen group to fill this function is what they are doing.  There's nothing
that requires the government to "fund" a project...just create and develope
the project.

I would disagree that the ARRL is not the organization...after all meand ARRL
the American Radio Relay League and in its early days did exactly what the
DHS/FEMA (government) is asking us to do.  We're being asked to go back to our
roots...and I think we can.

> 
> Hardened and secured messaging systems, such as those you envision,
> have already been built by our military ... at no minor expense.  They
> have several layers of redundancy and even with that, their "up-time",
> as a function of the investment in hardware and personnel,  isn't all
> that great.  It is doubtful that hams, with their limited spectrum
> allocations, will provide  superior systems.

Don't kid yourself, amateurs have more bandwidth than most other services and
may infact have more that the federal government.

Concerning up time, I know repeaters that have been on-the-air for years with
no maintenence required and never being off-the-air.  

> 
> Through the years, I have acquired better than $15,000 (replacement
> cost) worth of radios, computers, test equipment, antennas, emergency
> power supplies, and tools.  All of it "hobby" related.  I test it all,
> maintain it all, and ensure its operability on a daily basis.  I am
> quite willing to lend this equipment to "Emergency Communications" as
> I have defined it above.   I will continue to participate in bicycle
> tours, foot races, parades, the Badger Wx Net ... and if they need me
> for a forest fire, I'll join in that as well.  But, I will not
> dedicate my time and equipment to use in a system whose functional
> necessity is dubious at best.


Well, to each his own.  I know that others feel differntly...

> 
> There is some high order "fear mongering" going on these days.  The
> DHS, and its "terrorist alert colors" are prime examples.  I speak as
> a person old enough to remember "Duck-n-Cover" in grade school and my
> membership in the "Ground Observer Corps" a few years later ... before
> my "patriotism" lost its glow and shine in the battle with reality.

I carry a gallon of drinking water in my truck and changen it out every 6
months...I've never needed it...but carry it.

> 
> There is really little need for your "national emergency messaging
> system" (WL2K, or facsimiles).  If it sees any use at all, it will be
> only in weekly and monthly testing sessions.  In the intervening
> periods, the system will likely be carrying commercial traffic, which
> operators won't be able to distinguish because it will all be
> encrypted.  There will be a few people who run to the bank with your
> sweat and effort,  laughing all the way ... and, when all the
> patriotic horse puky finally washes away, they'll sell off whats left
> of  your HF frequencies to the highest bidder.

Oh I beg to differ with you.  The Texas Baptist Men Disaster Relief uses
satellite Internet E-Mail because it is a daily part and parcel of the unit we
use for emergencies...its used during non-emergencies as an office...but if we
did not have this, we would definately need an HF to E-Mail of HF peer to peer
message system in support of our efforts.  During the past hurricane season we
deployed 4 times, and to flooding in Mexico and around Houston...each time has 
we not had Satellite Internet connectivity we would have needed HF data 
communications to meet our disaster relief efforts.

> 
> I don't expect to win any converts to my way of thinking.  But, I
> suspect there are a good number of people who will decline
> participation without voiceing their similar concerns.

That's Ok too...this list is for those you are interested in what LinLink is 
trying to do...different strokes for differnt folks.

> 
> I hope this view may give you one more perspective from which to
> formulate your plans.

Yes, some new ideas but the basic plan has not changed.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

73,

Walt/K5YFW