North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: What Worked - What Didn't

  • From: Kevin Loch
  • Date: Mon Sep 17 17:21:23 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

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

The main focus seems to be using the amateur service in place of
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
(including the Internet) damaged in a disaster.  This could apply to
wireline networks, broadcast stations and ISP's get back online. 
using the "backup system" to help get the primary systems back online.


bcc: [email protected]