Public safety uses non-public safety spectrum for anything that isn't
mission critical. For example, you and I use cellphones. Just because
public safety has dedicated spectrum doesn't mean they shouldn't use
non-public safety spectrum for the same purposes that everyone else uses
shared public systems. The same applies to wifi although it's often
complained that public safety shouldn't use wifi because they have their own
allocation. This would be like saying that police shouldn't be allowed to
use cellphones.
But the inverse does apply. It is not acceptable for any public safety to
claim priority rights to use of wifi ... based on public safety priority.
No mission critical communications should be on wifi, so what they DO
communicate on wifi should receive no priviledge. I remember a thead on
wispa or part-15 wisp list about a municipality that put up a wifi network
targeted for public safety usage ... where any wisp would be perfectly
justified in claiming that they've no right to do so. Another thread I
recall was DOT deploying wifi along the highway for the EXACT function that
they've received a DSRC allocation at 5.9GHz for (remote highway sign
control) ... and any wisp would be perfectly justified in claiming they've
no right to do so.
Will other interests like private or muni broadband be able to use the
spectrum when public safety is quiet? If not then why not?
But they petition for and receive dedicated spectrum which cannot be used by
anyone else ... only for mission critical applications ... defined loosely
as traditional police, fire, and emergency service functions. These
functions have never shared spectrum with any other service (kind of goes
against the basic tenets of "mission critical functions"). For these
functions "interference" is never acceptable if it can result in lost or
delayed communications, and basically sharing for any other function can
cause this. The used-so-often justification (that it becomes tiresome to
hear in public safety discussion) is that an officer that pushes his PTT
(Push-to-talk) and blurts "Don't shoot" can become "shoot" with the loss of
only 200-300msec of speech.
I would have liked to be part of the plan. Especially when so many of us
WERE part of the plan in the post-Katrina efforts
PSWAC was written in the mid 1990s ... long time ago. As I recall there
were representatives from various non-public safety concerns. I presume
that all public safety planning since PSWAC remains open. FCC & NTIA were
the sponsors of the PSWAC that I participated (as a representative of Moto).
If we all had access to this spectrum then I know in my heart I would do
all I could to help improve public safety and would easily give up access
to the band in times of need
I know you would. It was awsome to see what wisps did for Katrina. But
public safety mission critical stuff may often be very short & very intense.
On their dedicated channels they may well deploy COW (cellular-on-wheels)
concept equipment (except for broadband) from mobile command center vans
during anything from an emergency, to a crime-scene, to a fire, to a
crime-in-progress police action ... where anyone not affiliated with public
safety is kept out-of-the-area.
is the plan for public safety to use IP based communications in this band?
For the broadband allocations, most likely. The plan lists public safety
functional needs, which for broadband we all know can be provided with IP
network technology. But most all the plans I participated in (remember, my
participation was in the 1990s) was solution neutral ... how it was to be
provided was not mandated. Except for interoperability for voice
communications ... back in the 90s the recommendations were quite specific
for how this would best be provided.
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
I think we can all appreciate that you are working hard to make public
safety communications better and I applaud your efforts. If I lose
opportunities for use of spectrum then I can think of no better place than
to those who are working to make our country safer and to help us when
disaster strikes our lives.
I do get frustrated sometimes when I see the opportunity for building
robust IP networks which could offer both public safety priority access
during time of need and general purpose wireless broadband when public
safety was not using the band. Allowing top priority to public safety with
secondary access for the rest of us would be a simple matter I believe and
would offer a very efficient use of this quality spectrum asset. If we all
had access to this spectrum then I know in my heart I would do all I could
to help improve public safety and would easily give up access to the band
in times of need as a condition of use of the band. I wish that had been
part of the plan but that does not mean I do not support the interests of
public safety. It only means I would have liked to be part of the plan.
Especially when so many of us WERE part of the plan in the post-Katrina
efforts where we delivered when many others did not.
Rich, is the plan for public safety to use IP based communications in this
band? If not then why not? What is the plan? Will other interests like
private or muni broadband be able to use the spectrum when public safety
is quiet? If not then why not?
Thanks,
Scriv
Rich Comroe wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Koskenmaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
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.
Your outside perceptions are completely wrong.
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?
If you're not sure what the broadband network is for, how could you have
already called the plan absurd?
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.
Completely wrong.
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... ???
I wouldn't begin to know where to start to explain it to you. I don't
believe you have any notion whatsoever of what the issues and challenges
are of public safety communications that are being addressed. If you
wanted to learn, you could start with the PSWAC report ... it's public
and on-line. But what amazed me is how you conclude with no knowledge
that the public safety broadband communications plans are absurd and
can't possibly work. Why would you jump out and slam a field that you
know nothing about? Yet you wonder where people get the notion from that
you're anti-gov. Why not just say "excuse me" on that one and we'll move
on.
Rich
----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Comroe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]>
> 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: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
