Communication Networks
Emergency information contributions seem to come from individual contributors. That is, information flows directly from these individuals to a central resource. This approach has several flaws. The most critical one is the use of frequencies. Look at any net and see a round-robin approach to information. One at a time, people call into the net. This single-threaded flow of information is slow and unresponsive to emergencies. It’s similar to individuals flooding 911 with reports. There is no accumulation or priority in place, at least not in the way we practice. And we are limited in the frequencies we use in those practices.
If we rethink this practice to make it more cell-like, where a cluster of communications occurs on local frequencies, we can gain advantages. We can also revisit the source and method of that information. But how can this be accomplished and how can we get more information from the ground? And, importantly, how do we bake in redundancy?
The first layer can be GMRS/FRS. GMRS/FRS frequency use is localized and can be enhanced with local repeaters. By encouraging and supporting local use (and perhaps finding some funding), we can create small networks in each community. By offering training on the NIMS systems, perhaps a higher-level view, for these operators, we can shape the communications. If not all operators want that training, those who do can become a focal point for information transfer. From there, local hams can interact with these nets, providing a 2-way flow of information.
The second layer is licensed ham operators. They interface with the local nets, providing updates and receiving information. The operator’s license, available equipment, and training would determine whether a third (or perhaps fourth) layer is needed. We want to make sure that we get good ground information and can provide any updates we can back to the community. The process should be collaborative rather than a one-way flow of information.
The third layer (and fourth, if needed) is the final leg of the information flow. These are the operators who can craft the proper message format and have the equipment to send it where needed. Whether this goes directly to the authority requesting the information or to a layer that organizes and summarizes it for publication will depend on the communications plan.
Obviously, several parts will need to be flexible. For example, if someone is close enough to do a local broadcast to the frequency receiving reports, that could change the license needed for that layer. The first layers will be the most stable and consistent. The method of information transfer will also be a deciding factor. If voice is used, it can be very limiting because a transmission can tie up a frequency for a long time. Digital modes, like Winlink, offer better flexibility. Information may be stored on a post office server for later retrieval; the internet can be used for transmissions, cell phones can send information, peer-to-peer is possible (leading to the use of multiple frequencies), and forms are available to be filled out, providing consistent reporting.
I think this model will provide the greatest security for Vermont. The layered model can address the following issues: blind spots in the locations of licensed operators, greater access to information, a real community sharing information during disasters, blind spots caused by mountain ranges, reliance on repeater systems for long-distance communications, and strength through redundancy.
Our goal for next year, to help keep everyone informed and safe, should be to find existing local networks, identify blind spots, build out these networks, and practice. October 2027 is our target for our first full test via the SET, and we should lay out at least a biannual test. We’ll need both people safely getting information in the field and people at their home stations gathering information. The need for people with base stations has always seemed missing from any talk about emergency communications; not everyone who helps needs to travel.
Practice will be key to lock in reporting. While the whole group may test twice a year, smaller groups can practice as needed to lock in their reporting and timing. We need accurate, timely reporting to ensure whichever partner we support has the latest information needed to make decisions.
