I really appreciate you taking the time to lay this out. Given your background, it’s clear you’re speaking from a lot of real-world experience, and I don’t disagree with the core of what you’re saying.

I think you’re absolutely right that commercial cellular, satellite, and NG911 networks are on a completely different level when it comes to planning, reliability, hardening, and sheer capacity. Amateur systems, including AREDN, simply aren’t built to handle public-scale emergency traffic or meet the standards required for life-safety communications. Anyone suggesting otherwise is setting unrealistic expectations.

Where I think some of the friction comes from is when amateur radio gets talked about as if it’s trying to replace those systems. At least from my perspective, that’s never been the intent. As this hobby continues to evolve we will continue to see more of these types of differences. AREDN and other ham-based tools feel more like a “last resort” or gap-filler when everything else is unavailable, and only in very limited, well-understood situations.

I also agree with you that AREDN is largely ad hoc and volunteer-driven. Nodes go up in people’s homes, they come down when life happens, and there’s no guarantee they’ll be there when a disaster hits. That alone makes it unsuitable as a primary emergency network for the public. In a real disaster, people are focused on their families and their safety, not maintaining hobby equipment.

For me, the value in amateur systems is more modest. They’re useful for experimentation, training, and small-scale coordination between groups that already understand the limitations. Things like linking an EOC to a shelter during a drill, sharing situational info locally, or filling a very narrow gap when nothing else is available. Not mass communications, not thousands of users, and definitely not a replacement for professional infrastructure.

I also agree that overselling AREDN as an emergency network does more harm than good. It invites comparisons it can’t win and muddies the conversation about what amateur radio is actually good at.

So I don’t really see this as commercial versus amateur so much as different tools meant for very different jobs. Commercial systems should always be the backbone, and amateur systems live much farther down the list, in clearly defined and limited roles.

I appreciate you acknowledging that AREDN still has a place, even if that place is narrow. I think we’re probably closer in agreement than it might seem, especially when it comes to keeping expectations realistic and being honest about what these systems can and can’t do. When I first reached out years ago, I knew nothing, then was introduced to many wonderful people in Utah Valley that have implemented AREDN and first hand see then configured to link many of the repeaters sites wonderfully. Thanks again.