National messaging system

[dubose at texas.net]

Gerry,

The FEMA guy at HamCom 2003 (you were there) was a techie guy...I just think
the ARRL folks he was talking to were more interested in the politics of the
MOA than the technical part.

I got to talk to the FEMA guy back at the HSMM booth at Ham Com 2003 when he
stopped by and then later I got to talk to the President of the ARRL at the
Austin Summerfest.

I also been taking to other ARRL Directors and vice-Directors.

FEMA has on more than one occasion said that they like the FEd. Standards. 
But I not so sure that we can meet all of them without expensive hardware.

Again, I think the specs. ball in the League's court.

Walt/K5YFW


Quoting Gerry Creager N5JXS <gerry.creager at tamu.edu>:

> Sounds to me like we need to get a techie involved with the DHS/FEMA 
> folks to define the goals/objectives/requirements?
> 
> gerry
> 
> dubose at texas.net wrote:
> > 
> > Rick wrote:
> > 
> >>Walt,
> >>
> >>You had mentioned:
> > 
> > 
> >>"The DHS/FEMA have told the ARRL that they would like to see them set up
> a
> >>national messaging system that did not depend on the Internet."
> >>
> >>This is a very significant statement indeed. I was completely unaware of
> >>this. How did you find out about it and is there a reference on the
> >>internet?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>73,
> >>
> >>Rick, KV9U
> > 
> > 
> > Rick,
> > 
> > At HamCom 2003, when the ARRL and DHS/FEMA signed their MOA, there was
> talk
> > among the FEMA folks and ARRL HQ folks and some of the talk blew over
> the
> > heads of the ARRL folks...but they did understand that they (the League)
> > needed a highspeed, messaging system...they messed the robustness part.
> > 
> > During that year and through the spring and of 2004, I had a chance to
> talk to
> > a number of League officials and pulled out the specs from what their
> > conversations were with FEMA.
> > 
> > The robustness specifications were not based on anything specifically
> said by
> > FEMA but rather on their reference to the FS-1052 standard they of
> mode(s). 
> > Here is where the ARRL REALLY needs to decide on what robust means...does
> it
> > mean a poor CCIR channel (this is typically what we have on HF 90% of
> the
> > time) and then if they want to be able to get the minimum throughput at
> 0dB or
> > a -5dB SNR.
> > 
> > As far as throughput goes, the minimum "highspeed" throughput for FS-1052
> is
> > 1200 BPS...I was just trying to transalate this into WPM.
> > 
> > If you look at page 17 of KN6KB's SCAMP presnetation to the DCC, you see
> that
> > he shows Pactor III and SCAMP at less than 200 WPM at a -5dB SNR on a
> poor
> > CCIR channel.  And if you look at G4HPE's DCC paper on MT63, you see that
> it
> > has 200 WPM at a -5dB SNR on a poor CCIR channel.  Part of what I hear
> from
> > the League is that Pactor III and some other users is Ok under good
> signal
> > conditions but isn't very good under poor conditions.
> > 
> > So taking all of the above into consideration, knowing from talking to
> some
> > FEMA folks about MT63, MY conclusion (its mine no one elses) that FEMA
> > probably considers robustness to be around -5dB SNR on a poor CCIR
> channel and
> > that something at or above 200 WPM is the minimum throughput.  
> > 
> > Right now all is relative and I admit a guess (SWAG perhaps) and will
> remain
> > so until the League comes out with some specs for a highspeed, robust HF
> mode.
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Walt/K5YFW
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linlink mailing list
> > Linlink at wetnet.net
> > http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
> 
> -- 
> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
> Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578
> Page: 979.228.0173
> Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
> 
>