What Worked - What Didn't

Mon Sep 17 20:49:43 UTC 2001

Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
> 
> Yes, very.  The #coverage channel on slashnet had folks watching/listening
> to various conventional media, as well as monitoring international news
> sites, and posting updates and links via moderators.  A tremendous amount
> of info came in that way, and usually scooped any individual media station.
> 
> I'd guess that setting up an IRC net for nanog-type operational traffic
> would be very helpful.  Equally helpful would be gatewaying that net
> via packet radio on amateur frequencies.  "Commercial" traffic is
> prohibited, but in a disaster this kind of thing would be equivalent
> to health-and-welfare traffic.
> 

This is a gray area.  Certainly any traffic related to the immediate
saftey of
life or property is permitted when "normal" communications services are
unavailable.

Here's the section of FCC rules part 97 that is relevant:

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/e.html

The main focus seems to be using the amateur service in place of
disabled/overloaded
communications systems for carrying traffic directly related to the
rescue/relief efforts.

It would probably be a good idea to ammend the rules
to explicitly allow traffic related to restoring other communication
services
(including the Internet) damaged in a disaster.  This could apply to
helping
wireline networks, broadcast stations and ISP's get back online. 
Thereby
using the "backup system" to help get the primary systems back online.

KL 
(N3KL)

bcc: w5jbp at arrl.org