Indeed. But, of course, as a 2X QCWA observer, it has been noted that it has been a hard fight to get attention for reliability over snazzy function.
Somewhere, a balance may be indicated. Snazzy is, of course, helpful. It can save lives. Reliablity is, of course, paramount. It, also, saves lives. Who is to say? Apparently, the wrong folks. . . . J o n a t h a n -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC Ohhhh ... Interesting. I had always wondered exactly why mobile units were isolated. Now I know. Perhaps the fancy technology is a hindrance, rather than a help. Plain old PTT half duplex would work wonders, it seems. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC > ...well, first of all, the obsession with full duplex via a non-failsafe > centralized system was a substantial part of the blame. The same-service > radios in the Katrina debacle couldn't talk to each other except through the > full-duxer...which, of course, drowned. > > . . . J o n a t h a n > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM > To: WISPA General List > 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. > > 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/ > > -- > 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/
