Thanks John,
Around our way they know that they must have some sort of plan of
action, but have nothing to show and cannot see that if they build the
infrastructure, let me maintain it and supply internet to their tax
payers and they can use it in an emergency. It boggles my mind.
You have a Good Day now,
Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha
John Scrivner wrote:
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" <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/