----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Koskenmaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
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" <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/
