Can you repeat? Oh, forget it.
By Matthew Chatfield
I am just recovering from
a two-day festival for 12,000 local residents. We had to park five thousand
cars, shepherd a steam of live bands on and off the two stages, and of course
keep the beer and the toilets flowing. However, the moment which I suspect will
remain fixed in my memory – and that of many others - was when an acquaintance
of mine, nine-and-one-half months pregnant, persuaded us to let her try the
bouncy castle. I’m not sure if we laughed more getting her on, or getting
her off. The festival went very well, but, although the visitors would never
have known, we had a problem.
The
problem was the same one we had last year. What is more, if you work in countryside
management my guess is that you, too, have suffered this. That problem is communication.
The two-way radios we had borrowed were useless. We already knew that our own
ones were useless. The mobile telephones could not be heard over the sound system.
In the end, to communicate we resorted to the time honoured method of sending
runners – a system considered archaic by the Romans. Surely, we could
do better? Whilst wondering about this, I began considering the whole issue
of countryside communications.
Not that long ago, mobile telephones were rather big, expensive,
and so on. That has now changed, along with digital watches and tamagotchis.
Your mobile telephone, we are assured, need be no bigger than a Mars bar. Bizarrely,
they can also be cheaper than a Mars bar to buy - although the running costs
are higher. Countryside managers now have an interesting choice. Should they
go for the more convenient, independent and heavily marketed mobile telephones
for their staff? On the other hand, should they rely upon radios, now also cheaper
and smaller? Of course, in many countryside services the answer is a combination
of both, because the two systems have different qualities. A ranger with a radio
Radio communication, when it works, works very well. It has
the advantage of allowing many people to hear a message, and feel in touch,
even if they do not need to respond. For countryside workers, this can be particularly
useful. As I have previously argued in favour of email, it is the insignificant
messages that tend not to get passed on, but which make a worker feel a part
of a team. Radio, with its fixed running costs, makes this easy. However, it
has some disadvantages. The biggest is the initial cost, which can be very high
indeed. However, if a system already exists (and in many large organisations
it does), extending it is simple – often merely a case of buying another
handset and switching it on. This could eventually lead to another problem,
overcrowding. Unlike telephones, if too many people are on one radio channel
it becomes hard to use, and more channels cost more money.
The structure of the organisation will also affect the choices
made. Radio systems are essentially local, and so if staff are very widely spread,
or roam a long way, radios will be little use. Furthermore, a radio is no use
to a patrolling warden if there is nobody else on the other end of it. If your
organisation has few office-based staff, or you work regular unsocial hours,
this can be a problem. It can require a duty listening roster or some understanding
spouses! There is, however, one overwhelming advantage for some rural countryside
staff. Radios can be used anywhere – if the terrain permits – whereas
mobile telephone coverage is generally restricted to populated areas.
Mobile telephones, by comparison, are cheap and easy. The quality
of calls is now very good, and often far better than a radio system. Companies
are queuing up for the privilege of selling you the best deal. Should you be
taking advantage of this? Well, maybe. The handset may be free, but you will
pay plenty in call charges and monthly line rental, especially if you make a
lot of calls. Admittedly, there are some ‘free calls’ deals, but
these can be expensive. You are obliged to sign a contract, which makes it more
difficult to get rid of a telephone. You simply turn off a spare radio and put
it in the bottom drawer, but an idle telephone is a very expensive luxury. This
means that you are likely to buy the very minimum number you can get away with.
The average countryside service tends to use a few telephones, and often shares
them about. They tend to complement, rather than replace, an existing radio
system if one exists. For example, I used to work at a site where we had one
telephone between five staff, and about half a dozen radios. The duty ranger
carried the telephone, but often found themselves phoning the office to ask
them to radio a colleague. It worked well, but really, the telephone became
an emergency facility rather than an everyday tool. If radios are available
this would still seem to be a sensible way to use the two systems.
Finally, there are some principles that apply to any communications
system we might consider. The main one, and particularly important for countryside
workers, is the quality of reception. The sort of places where we might need
to use such technology is often just the place it will not work – in the
bottom of a valley, miles from anywhere, or, in my case, underneath some big
pylons. What is more, the reception can vary greatly over very short distances.
So test rigorously any system you might consider. You should also be aware that
different mobile telephone networks have different coverages, and so if one
doesn’t work in your area, another might. The second important thing to
consider is the future. The future might be bright in the adverts, but it will
soon enough go dark if you cannot continue to pay your bills. Any communications
system will be expensive and will continue to require investment. In IT technology
changes regularly and new gadgets are usually required – telephones and
radios are no exception.
So, what will I do for my festival next year? Well, I have seriously
considered more low-tech solutions such as semaphore, and even vaguely thought
about cocoa-tins and string. No, just kidding. I suppose we shall have to get
more specialised equipment in, and test out a few more widgets. I shall keep
you posted. More money, more toys. It’s tough being a Virtual Ranger!
Matthew Chatfield: October 1998
NB: This article was written in 1998. Technology has moved on somewhat since
then, but some of the issues have not!
Pages marked with this symbol are exclusively written for
Naturenet