Justin... I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk to each other via voice radio. I would tend to agree that frequency coordination seems to be a terrible issue. The cited "reasons" for this was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO hurricane problems. Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities. They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and didn't seem to know who to talk to for what. That's just the outside perception, at least.
But as far as I can tell, this isn't about talking to each other, it's about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps? I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else. A lack of spectrum doesn't seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications problems. Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network. I'm just not cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters. I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Comroe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Koskenmaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC > > > >I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive > > opportunity, and instead, settle for some money... > > > > (sigh). > > > > This "nationwide broadband network for public safety" is absurd. > > > Why would you say this? I served on the technology committee that drafted > the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the > FCC/NTIA. The initiative was a response to the first world trade center > bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities > converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could > more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their > radios. In PSWAC we focused on "compatibility" (I know you think it's an > evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency > assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic. A > "nationwide" allocation of "compatible" equipment seems eminently logical as > the cleanest solution to the dilema. Of course, little improved following > the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for > replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic > congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the > connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering > unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be > funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz allocation -- > and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC. > > > Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed, > > because it'll be "down" or something. > > > Why would you say this? Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment > as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles. In fact, I've > heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than > for losing his gun! Any failure of a public safety communications radio > network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event. > > Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with > no explaination. Do you have any background or experience with public > safety communications to help understand what you object to? I don't > understand either comment. What's your beef? > > Rich > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM > > Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC > > > > > >> 196 page decision > >> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf> > >> > >> SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL. > >> The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 > >> MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the "700 MHz Band". (Dkt No. > >> 94-102, 96-86). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: > >> 04/25/2007 by R&O. (FCC No. 07-72). PSHSB, WTB , WTB > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
