Registration required on that direct link. No thanks.
I was able to get to it without registration from Google News
<http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&hl=en&q=Reed-Hundt%20municipal-wireless&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn>
or <http://tinyurl.com/corv3>. In part:
Congress should grant $1 billion in federal matching grants to any
municipality that will pay 50 percent of the cost of such a local
wireless broadband network. Local government should let competitive
contracts and build city-by-city, county-by-county, coast-to-coast
WiFi network.
Incredibly bad idea.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
"Officials ought to reallocate a spectrum, probably in
the 700 megahertz band, for a national wireless network
reserved for first responders. The local WiFi networks can
be used by anyone with a laptop. The first-responder network
would be available only for authorized emergency services."
Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.
Also the way this article uses the term "mesh" is incorrect.
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/12917284.htm
>
> "Officials ought to reallocate a spectrum, probably in
> the 700 megahertz band, for a national wireless network
> reserved for first responders. The local WiFi networks can
> be used by anyone with a laptop. The first-responder network
> would be available only for authorized emergency services."
>
>Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.
4.9GHz is where Motorola and others are trying desperately to prevent
customers from adopting non-proprietary (802.11a) standards. See any
802.11a mentioned here? http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405
700MHz is worse because even acts of congress and major FCC
concessions cannot seem to move the broadcasters off the frequencies.
Incidentally, depending upon whom you discuss the issues, "wireless
data" at 700MHz often means Project 25 data at a fabulous 3600 or 9600
baud. Whoopee.
>Also the way this article uses the term "mesh" is incorrect.
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org
>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.
>
>4.9GHz is where Motorola and others are trying desperately to prevent
>customers from adopting non-proprietary (802.11a) standards. See any
>802.11a mentioned here?
There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.
>
>700MHz is worse because even acts of congress and major FCC
>concessions cannot seem to move the broadcasters off the frequencies.
>Incidentally, depending upon whom you discuss the issues, "wireless
>data" at 700MHz often means Project 25 data at a fabulous 3600 or 9600
>baud. Whoopee.
>
>>Also the way this article uses the term "mesh" is incorrect.
>
>Actually, he understands mesh quite well within the frame of reference
>of when the FCC first mis-allocated the 700MHz band in early 2002.
> http://dailywireless.org/modules.php...ticle&sid=2434
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org
>>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>>Um... that's what they've allocated 4.9 GHz to.
>>
>>4.9GHz is where Motorola and others are trying desperately to prevent
>>customers from adopting non-proprietary (802.11a) standards. See any
>>802.11a mentioned here?
>
>> http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405
>
>There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.
No way. The whole idea behind allocating 4.9GHz was to allow the use
of modified 5.7Ghz 802.11a hardware on 4.9Ghz using coordination and
licensing to mitigate interference. Nobody even suggested a wide
area wireless municipal mesh network on 4.9GHz in the original
proposal. What we're seeing are vendors trying to lock large
government equipment anti-terrorism funding into proprietary corners.
I'll spare you my rant on such a technical "solution" looking for a
problem to solve. Do you remember what problem 4.9GHz was originally
intended to solve? It was a rush allocation by the FCC following the
WTC bombing as a solution to a rather disgusting inter agency
communications interoperability problem. One doesn't do that by
pushing proprietary solutions.
802.11p is for data between high speed vehicles to fixed access points
at 5.9GHz, not 4.9GHz. It is not a mesh network standard. I don't
see why Firetide would need or want 802.11p for their mesh. Progress
is currently on draft 0.23 which is very preliminary. It's been
running for about a year and there will probably need to be some live
testing before the vote. My most optimistic guess is 1.5 years.
>No way. The whole idea behind allocating 4.9GHz was to allow the use
>of modified 5.7Ghz 802.11a hardware on 4.9Ghz using coordination and
>licensing to mitigate interference.
Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.
I only say "probably" in the above because it's not yet
adopted by IEEE.
N obody even suggested a wide
> area wireless municipal mesh network on 4.9GHz in the original
> proposal.
Agreed.
> What we're seeing are vendors trying to lock large
> government equipment anti-terrorism funding into proprietary corners.
There may be some of that going on, but mostly it's pre-standards
confusion, not a deliberate attempt at a lockin of non-standards.
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.firetide.com/index.cfm?section=products405
>>>
>>>There's a pre-standard product; it will become 802.11p, probably.
>
>>No way. The whole idea behind allocating 4.9GHz was to allow the use
>>of modified 5.7Ghz 802.11a hardware on 4.9Ghz using coordination and
>>licensing to mitigate interference.
>
>Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
>called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.
Can't be done. However, we're getting off the subject. You stated
that the Firetide mesh product that being advertised for the 4.9GHz
band will eventually mutate into 802.11p. I stated that there's no
connection, relation, or reason for Firetide mesh to have anything to
do with a completely different technology around 802.11p. There's
absolutely no connection. The 802.11p topology was suppose to be a
moving mesh network but has more realistically slithered back to fixed
access points and moving vehicles with no attempt to play mesh network
between the vehicles and the roadside access points. With the
extremely short times allows for transmission, 802.11a timing just
isn't going to work. It won't be an adaptation but a total redesign.
>> What we're seeing are vendors trying to lock large
>> government equipment anti-terrorism funding into proprietary corners.
>There may be some of that going on, but mostly it's pre-standards
>confusion, not a deliberate attempt at a lockin of non-standards.
Sorry. My perception of the situation is far more conspiratorial. In
a past life, I dealt with quite a bit of FCC related issues. Although
I'm far out of the loop these days, my experience showed that when the
big vendors proclaim "open systems" or "interoperability", they never
seem to quite deliver. I have lots of examples, but one of my
favorites is that Motorola doesn't even pretend to be interoperable
with their own equipment. Every new model requires *ALL* new
accessories and batteries. Even the power connector is new requiring
a vehicle rewiring. I don't think there's an antenna connector
available that they haven't used. The mics are similar, but the
connectors are all different. When they accidentally use a standard
connector (i.e. RJ45), then they make sure that the pinout is
completely different from other manufacturers and their earlier
products. Many more examples if you want them. Not only is the
proprietary design deliberate, but it's institutionalized by company
policy.
>>Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
>>called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.
>Can't be done. However, we're getting off the subject. You stated
>that the Firetide mesh product that being advertised for the 4.9GHz
>band will eventually mutate into 802.11p. I stated that there's no
>connection, relation, or reason for Firetide mesh to have anything to
>do with a completely different technology around 802.11p. There's
>absolutely no connection. The 802.11p topology was suppose to be a
>moving mesh network but has more realistically slithered back to fixed
>access points and moving vehicles with no attempt to play mesh network
>between the vehicles and the roadside access points. With the
>extremely short times allows for transmission, 802.11a timing just
>isn't going to work. It won't be an adaptation but a total redesign.
I agree, there's no way an 802.11 MAC will run on top of the
802.11p PHY, and in that sense it will be a less-standard standard.
I do not know if Fireside uses some earlier version of that
standard -- WAVE has been around for a long time, it was originally
controlled by SAE ... yep, the same people who standardize
motor oil.
In any case, yes nothing sold now will interoperate with anything
that may be standard in the future, unless someone deliberately
puts in back-compatibility.
>In any case, yes nothing sold now will interoperate with anything
>that may be standard in the future, unless someone deliberately
>puts in back-compatibility.
>Steve
I'm trying to visualize what TCP/IP would have looked like if DARPA
had adopted the same philosophy. Back compatibility with what? The
technology lifetimes are so short that it's literally not worth the
effort. Incidentally, wanna try using my 802.11 (1-2Mbits/sec
Teletronics PCMCIA cards? It won't work with about 1/3rd of the hot
spots I've tried and does a fair job of monopolizing the ones that
allow it to connect.
If you do consider backwards compatibility a desireable feature, then
make it optional with a switch. Eventually, you just turn it off and
leave it off. I just turned on "802.11g only" mode on a clients three
access points because all the 802.11b client radios had finally been
exterminated. They noticed an immediate improvement in general
performance.
If the government really wants inter agency communications
interoperability, they have to:
1. State that this is their intent and goal. (done).
2. Establish a shopping list of functional requirements. (not done)
3. Establish a standards selection process and deadline to insure
that at least some thing useful will be done. (not done)
4. Establish a testing mechanism and criteria for standards
compliance. (not done)
This is roughly the way TCP/IP, FIPS, POSIX, (not SVID), were
established. In my never subtle opinion, either the government isn't
serious about interoperability, is completely clueless about how it is
going to achieve it, or both.
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>If the government really wants inter agency communications
>interoperability, they have to:
> 1. State that this is their intent and goal. (done).
> 2. Establish a shopping list of functional requirements. (not done)
Actually I've seen (pretty large) government RFQ's for 4.9
GHz emergenry comm gear. This was about two years ago.
I don't know who (if anyone) responded but Motorola would
be a reasonable guess.
> 3. Establish a standards selection process and deadline to insure
> that at least some thing useful will be done. (not done)
Eeeeek.
Do you really want the feds to be triving to drive the
standards process?
(Actually, the feds to this, for Military standards... but
not for anything really used commercially, except by accident.)
> 4. Establish a testing mechanism and criteria for standards
> compliance. (not done)
Again they do this for mil specs.
>This is roughly the way TCP/IP, FIPS, POSIX, (not SVID), were
>established. In my never subtle opinion, either the government isn't
>serious about interoperability, is completely clueless about how it is
>going to achieve it, or both.
You will recall, in the early 90's, there was a fed-wide
move towards COTS -- commercial off-the-shelf euquipment,
standards, etc. No governmental efforts unless it was
military or intelligence.
>Actually I've seen (pretty large) government RFQ's for 4.9
>GHz emergenry comm gear. This was about two years ago.
>I don't know who (if anyone) responded but Motorola would
>be a reasonable guess.
I haven't seen those so I don't know what's in them. Over the years,
friends working for various companies have sent me bid specs involving
RF and ask me the traditional "What are they asking for"? The problem
is that in order to be universally fair and equitable, the
specifications for wireless system cannot follow a specific vendors
product specs. As a side effect, they therefore tend to be rather
vague. Unfortunately, even good ideas get overdone and non-vendor
specific turns rapidly into incomprehensible or just plain vague. Over
the years, I've seen a few elaborate wireless government RFQ's, that
either would not work as specified, require major R&D to deliver a
working device, or are borderline science fiction. Since the FCC has
only recently started type certifying 4.9GHz hardware, I can only
speculate as to what the government RFQ was expecting.
Incidentally, I regularly read First Responder, MRT (Mobile Radio
Technology), Mission Critical Communications (Radio Resource)
magazines and others. Lots of stories about possible 4.9GHz
applications. Up until recently, the major application seems to be
video from either aircraft or surveillance devices. Lately the hype
has drifted into building municipal mesh networks. Interoperability
is rarely even mentioned. The few users in the business that I've
asked about what they plan to do with 4.9GHz seem to think that it
would nice to have a secure data link for smart hardware and wireless
laptops for filling out forms. It seems like a solution looking for a
problem to solve, but I may be talking to the wrong people.
>> 3. Establish a standards selection process and deadline to insure
>> that at least some thing useful will be done. (not done)
>Do you really want the feds to be triving to drive the
>standards process?
Read what I wrote. I said "standards selection" not creation. That
means they go shopping for available commercial standards necessary to
deliver a workable product. For example "must comply with
IEEE-802.11a-1999 and such". After all, the feds are both the biggest
customer and the source of funding for the smaller municipal
customers. If they're going to burn my tax dollars on this joke, they
might was well get something that has a chance of working without
spending its days occupying a warehouse.
>(Actually, the feds to this, for Military standards... but
>not for anything really used commercially, except by accident.)
The radios I used to design were full of MIL Spec components. There
were quite a few differences between commercial components and MIL
spec. Most of it was in the testing necessary to insure that they met
the specs. The coax cable in your wireless contrivances is all
references by Mil designations (RG-XXX and Mil-C17-XXXXX). As the
military was buying more off the shelf commercial hardware, what
really happened was the elimination of the compliance testing
component. The military was more than happy to get the Mil Spec
components they had been used to buying as sky high prices, but as
commercial prices without the testing. Kinda like "kosher style"
food. Same stuff but without the rabbi's inspection and blessing.
>> 4. Establish a testing mechanism and criteria for standards
>> compliance. (not done)
>
>Again they do this for mil specs.
Actually, they're suppose to do that for literally everything they
buy, from pencils to satellites. This step is literally the key to
the whole exercise. A dozen companies can build 4.9GHz interoperable
hardware that meets some federal RFQ specs. But, it's not really
interoperable until someone actually tests them for compliance and
functionality. Three examples of a 90% job that could have been 100%
if someone had established a testing mechanism were, WDS, NWAY
ethernet negotiation, and VPN interoperability. In fact, both of
these are still problems today because specs and testing vaguely
defined. If you want it to work, you gotta test it to be sure it's
gonna work.
>>This is roughly the way TCP/IP, FIPS, POSIX, (not SVID), were
>>established. In my never subtle opinion, either the government isn't
>>serious about interoperability, is completely clueless about how it is
>>going to achieve it, or both.
>You will recall, in the early 90's, there was a fed-wide
>move towards COTS -- commercial off-the-shelf euquipment,
>standards, etc. No governmental efforts unless it was
>military or intelligence.
Yeah, I guess. Just have the city drive down to Fry's and buy a
4.9Ghz wireless system. Actually, that was the original intent and
why the FCC released 4.9GHz from their clutches for the purpose. One
would expect that all the 802.11a vendors would make a 4.9GHz model.
In sufficient quantities, it would probably be available off the shelf
from the usual emergency responder vendors.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC),
in article <dj6qis$5an$1@blue.rahul.net>, spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes...
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:57:03 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org
>
> >>Yes, the "modified 802.11a" you're talking about, formerly
> >>called "WAVE", is now called 802.11p.
>
> >Can't be done. However, we're getting off the subject. You stated
> >that the Firetide mesh product that being advertised for the 4.9GHz
> >band will eventually mutate into 802.11p. I stated that there's no
> >connection, relation, or reason for Firetide mesh to have anything to
> >do with a completely different technology around 802.11p. There's
> >absolutely no connection. The 802.11p topology was suppose to be a
> >moving mesh network but has more realistically slithered back to fixed
> >access points and moving vehicles with no attempt to play mesh network
> >between the vehicles and the roadside access points. With the
> >extremely short times allows for transmission, 802.11a timing just
> >isn't going to work. It won't be an adaptation but a total redesign.
>
> I agree, there's no way an 802.11 MAC will run on top of the
> 802.11p PHY, and in that sense it will be a less-standard standard.
>
> I do not know if Fireside uses some earlier version of that
> standard -- WAVE has been around for a long time, it was originally
> controlled by SAE ... yep, the same people who standardize
> motor oil.
>
> In any case, yes nothing sold now will interoperate with anything
> that may be standard in the future, unless someone deliberately
> puts in back-compatibility.
I may be reading this wrong, but why is compatibility such an
issue if we are talking about systems that are going to be
primarily used by emergency agencies and so on? Isn't the
history of that sector pretty much filled with proprietary
solutions? Would you really want to make it trivial for
someone to modify a consumer product in order to snoop on
law enforcement and emergency-vehicle radio transmissions?
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>I may be reading this wrong, but why is compatibility such an
>issue if we are talking about systems that are going to be
>primarily used by emergency agencies and so on? Isn't the
>history of that sector pretty much filled with proprietary
>solutions? Would you really want to make it trivial for
>someone to modify a consumer product in order to snoop on
>law enforcement and emergency-vehicle radio transmissions?
To allow inter-agency operation, or to ensure that a
system could be expanded with more units in the future
and still be compatible.
Recall the 1991 Oakland fire, wherein fire crews from
different jurisdictions found that, in many cases, their
hoses would not fit onto the fireplugs because
fireplugs are non-standard.
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:43:49 +0000 (UTC),
in article <djhsal$6nb$1@blue.rahul.net>, spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes...
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I may be reading this wrong, but why is compatibility such an
> >issue if we are talking about systems that are going to be
> >primarily used by emergency agencies and so on? Isn't the
> >history of that sector pretty much filled with proprietary
> >solutions? Would you really want to make it trivial for
> >someone to modify a consumer product in order to snoop on
> >law enforcement and emergency-vehicle radio transmissions?
>
> To allow inter-agency operation, or to ensure that a
> system could be expanded with more units in the future
> and still be compatible.
>
> Recall the 1991 Oakland fire, wherein fire crews from
> different jurisdictions found that, in many cases, their
> hoses would not fit onto the fireplugs because
> fireplugs are non-standard.
>
> Steve
I see the potential benefits.
On the other hand, I guess I'm one of those skeptics that
finds a certain degree of comfort in the fact that states
and municipalities don't all operate as if they were one
homogenous mass. From a civil liberties point of view,
the idea of "National ID cards" and national citizen
databases of various forms aren't too appealing.
If all the law-enforcement and emergency agencies end
up having the same basic communications equipment, my
cynical mind starts to worry about whether it doesn't
pave the way for centralized, national control over all
of these agencies.
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:32:27 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>I may be reading this wrong, but why is compatibility such an
>issue if we are talking about systems that are going to be
>primarily used by emergency agencies and so on?
The original inspiration for 4.9Ghz was the muddle at the World Trade
Center, where different agencies could not talk and coordinate with
each other. 4.9Ghz was somehow intended to give law enforcement a
common datacomm system. 700MHz will eventually do the rest. Here's
Michael Powell's pitch line before a Senate committee on the grand
plan for emergency services.
| http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/...00&wit_id=1943
"This spectrum at 4.9 GHz is part of a transfer of Federal
Government spectrum to private sector use and will accommodate
a variety of new broadband applications while also fostering
interoperability."
Note the word "interoperability" which means that anyone can talk to
anyone else. It would be a fair assumption that such broadband
applications would be standards based and not some proprietary
protocol fabricated for the sole purpose of restricting competative
bidding.
>Isn't the
>history of that sector pretty much filled with proprietary
>solutions?
Absolutely. Motorola leads the industry in insuring that absolutely
nothing will talk, communicate, or plug into other vendors hardware
(or their own previous models). In addition, great efforts are made
by the frequency coordination organizations (APCO) to prevent
interoperability in the name of interference reduction. Even the FCC
has weighed into the interoperability prevention business by refusing
to type certify field programmable radios. While over the air
programming is allowed for Motorola SecureNet operation, this does not
include juggling frequencies and channels remotely. A good example of
how an agency responds is the current use of Midland 256 channel
radios by CDF. They need all those channels in case the unit has to
move to another area. I've been told another 256 channels would be
handy. Basically, all the tools for interoperability are available
and functional. What's missing is the removal of bureaucratic
impediments, standards, and the necessary relaxation of rules-n-regs.
>Would you really want to make it trivial for
>someone to modify a consumer product in order to snoop on
>law enforcement and emergency-vehicle radio transmissions?
It's more than just snoop. It's also trivial for someone to hot wire
a microwave oven and turn it into an area wide jammer. If you dive
into eBay, you'll find a fairly large collection of used public safety
radios suitable for constructing a monitor or jammer. The FRS, GMRS,
and MURS rules prevent combining these channels into public safety and
commerical radios insuring a market for both. Never mind that much of
the short range communications in Iraq is still being done with cheap
FRS radios because the fancy military stuff didn't work as expected.
In other words, the rules are intentionally restrictive in areas of
cross service interoperability. Wouldn't it be nice if your cell
phone had a "walkie-talkie" like function (such as FRS) that didn't
require the benevolent involvment of the cellular provider?
Interestingly, the major reason that law enforcement doesn't use
encryption as much as one would expect is that they also use a huge
amount of cheap consumer scanners and commercial hardware that does
not allow for encryption. It's also an expensive option. The issues
are commonly discussed under the topic of "scanner law".
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:34:33 -0700,
in article <1e1ql1hm0j9e0v01nthprqvj1nsbav5tjn@4ax.com>, jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) writes...
[excellent comments on interoperability and proprietary
vs standards-based technology within the emergency
services sector]
So here's an interesting alternative - it may have most
of the benefits without most of the problems of radio
standardization, and some interesting "goodies" of its
own:
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Basically, that's a pitch for VoIP for dispatch. That's already being
done with a wide variety of related products. One part that's
conspicuously absent interfaces for Nextel, Telco, POTS, lease lines,
P25, conventional FM, and other forms of incompatible communications.
There are products that glue these together which include VoIP.
However I have a different view of emergency communications. It
largely reflects the thinking of Andy Seybold at:
| http://www.outlook4mobility.com/comm...5/sept1205.htm
In a real disaster, the infrastructure always breaks down. The more
extensive the disaster, the more extensive the damage. If
communications is reliant on infrastructure such as cell sites,
repeaters, internet connections, and wired backhaul, then it will
fail. What's really needed is infrastructure-less communications.
That's something the major manufacturers detest because it frees the
customer from their proprietary clutches. In this light, I see the
Cisco emergency "system" as a giant step backwards.
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>In a real disaster, the infrastructure always breaks down. The more
>extensive the disaster, the more extensive the damage. If
>communications is reliant on infrastructure such as cell sites,
>repeaters, internet connections, and wired backhaul, then it will
>fail. What's really needed is infrastructure-less communications.
Satellite communications may be your best bet here, or, possibly, HF
although that doesn't scale as well. These two have been favorites
of military communicators for decades. Very few natural disasters
or human adversaries have the ability to knock out a satellite
(although ground stations are potentially vulnerable), and disrupting
HF requires a procedure known as "pumping up the belts" which
involves the use of nuclear bombs.
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>In a real disaster, the infrastructure always breaks down. The more
>>extensive the disaster, the more extensive the damage. If
>>communications is reliant on infrastructure such as cell sites,
>>repeaters, internet connections, and wired backhaul, then it will
>>fail. What's really needed is infrastructure-less communications.
>Satellite communications may be your best bet here,
How would satellite communications have helped in the World Trade
Center mess? For that matter, how would municipal wireless have
helped?
Satellite comm certainly has its place. Many of the COW's (Cell sites
on Wheels) use satellite for their backhaul. CA OES and FEMA both
have satellite comm systems. However, these tend to be concentrated
at the emergency centers. Once communications breaks down between the
PSAP's (public safety answering points), satellite becomes less than
useful.
>or, possibly, HF
>although that doesn't scale as well.
True. NVIS HF does handle medium range communications that is farther
than can be done on VHF/UHF, but not so far that one ends up out of
state. As for capacity, maybe 300 baud via HF using Pactor 3 on a
good day.
>These two have been favorites
>of military communicators for decades. Very few natural disasters
>or human adversaries have the ability to knock out a satellite
>(although ground stations are potentially vulnerable), and disrupting
>HF requires a procedure known as "pumping up the belts" which
>involves the use of nuclear bombs.
>>>In a real disaster, the infrastructure always breaks down. The more
>>>extensive the disaster, the more extensive the damage. If
>>>communications is reliant on infrastructure such as cell sites,
>>>repeaters, internet connections, and wired backhaul, then it will
>>>fail. What's really needed is infrastructure-less communications.
>
>>Satellite communications may be your best bet here,
>How would satellite communications have helped in the World Trade
>Center mess? For that matter, how would municipal wireless have
>helped?
I'm not familiar with what communications problems were caused
by WTC so I can't answer.
In general, if a set of people are issued satcom radios they
can communicate with one another in the absence of any local
infrastructure surviving. From what I hear, this would have
helped during Katrina if at least some responders had this
capability, because there were many reports of responders (including
FEMA) on the site unable to reach their offices.
>Satellite comm certainly has its place. Many of the COW's (Cell sites
>on Wheels) use satellite for their backhaul.
Excellent plan.
> CA OES and FEMA both have satellite comm systems. However,
> these tend to be concentrated at the emergency centers.
> Once communications breaks down between the PSAP's (public
> safety answering points), satellite becomes less than useful.
So, you're saying FEMA individuals in the field don't have
satcom radios. IMO at least some fraction of them should.
Unless things have changed, National Guard units do.
(It would be sad if they ditched this capability, figuring there'd
always be cellular capacity.)
>>or, possibly, HF
>>although that doesn't scale as well.
>True. NVIS HF does handle medium range communications that is farther
>than can be done on VHF/UHF, but not so far that one ends up out of
>state. As for capacity, maybe 300 baud via HF using Pactor 3 on a
>good day.
Yes. I remember looking at near-vertical HF years ago. The application
was shore to just offshore. I don't recall what the data rate
limits were. It was a second choice to satcom; with all satcom
channels assigned, there were still people left over trying to use HF.
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:18:09 GMT,
in article <gmbrl19v4alaloe3ug3fn59rbq8rmhhh7s@4ax.com>, jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) writes...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:37:00 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5911356.html
>
> Basically, that's a pitch for VoIP for dispatch. That's already being
> done with a wide variety of related products. One part that's
> conspicuously absent interfaces for Nextel, Telco, POTS, lease lines,
> P25, conventional FM, and other forms of incompatible communications.
> There are products that glue these together which include VoIP.
Well, sorta. But the real crux of this seems to be the ability to
receive and transmit to all these disparate endpoints and merge
everything together into a homogenous communication channel.
Those Telex Viper and Sharpcom thingies look interesting, but the
limitation seems to be how many "ports" you have connected to the
command center for each disparate system.
Nonetheless I guess that these things are more-or-less precursors
to the Cisco product. It also makes me wonder - if these devices
are really in use out in the field, then what's the beef when it
comes to interoperability in a big disaster? Once again, it seems
that the limitation is that you can only funnel a limited number
of channels through the "big mixer". Perhaps some other geographic
issues too, like having to backhaul a conversation from a fireman
and a cop standing 1000 feet apart from each other to a command
center 100's of miles away, for example.
It looks like the Cisco thing will have a lot more bells and
whistles, not too surprising there. In a way, it's rather
philosophically compatible with Cisco's roots - designing
multiprotocol network routers that understand all the various
protocols in deep detail and getting them all to co-exist and
run over the same infrastructure.
> However I have a different view of emergency communications. It
> largely reflects the thinking of Andy Seybold at:
> | http://www.outlook4mobility.com/comm...5/sept1205.htm
> In a real disaster, the infrastructure always breaks down. The more
> extensive the disaster, the more extensive the damage. If
> communications is reliant on infrastructure such as cell sites,
> repeaters, internet connections, and wired backhaul, then it will
> fail. What's really needed is infrastructure-less communications.
I would agree there.
> That's something the major manufacturers detest because it frees the
> customer from their proprietary clutches.
I dunno. I just think it's a lot harder to implement than
something that assumes that you've got working towers to
communicate with. The options are far more limited, especially
for long distances.
> In this light, I see the Cisco emergency "system" as a giant step
> backwards.
Why? Because it would encourage agencies to stick with their
existing radios? That's true, but then again, I don't see why
you couldn't plug-in new-fangled infrastructure-less radios into
such a system like anything else, so it could offer a certain
sort of "bridge" in that respect as well, from old to new.
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Re: Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:02:05 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>Well, sorta. But the real crux of this seems to be the ability to
>receive and transmit to all these disparate endpoints and merge
>everything together into a homogenous communication channel.
Exactly. That's not easy to do on an ad-hoc basis. As field units
arrive from all across the country, they usually bring their own
communications with them. Sometimes, it doesn't quite work as when a
search and rescue team from California arrived in Florida for
hurricane relief and found itself talking on the local sheriff's
channel. In theory, each arriving agency contributes a radio to the
interoperability box. The box acts as an IP switchboard to deal with
traffic between agencies. Incidentally, there's no attempt to turn it
into a giant party line, where everyone hears everyone else. It's
strictly on demand which puts the load on whomever is "operating" the
switch, which is not an easy exercise.
>Those Telex Viper and Sharpcom thingies look interesting, but the
>limitation seems to be how many "ports" you have connected to the
>command center for each disparate system.
They vary from 8 to about 32 ports. Any more would be a mess. There
are also virtual IP circuits (VPN) to add to the puzzle.
>Nonetheless I guess that these things are more-or-less precursors
>to the Cisco product.
Not exactly. The Cisco proposal (it's not a product yet) is to do
everything the interoperability boxes do and then some. What Cisco
brings to the table is decent VoIP solutions and internet intefaces.
Everything else has already been worked out by the other vendors.
>It also makes me wonder - if these devices
>are really in use out in the field, then what's the beef when it
>comes to interoperability in a big disaster?
I don't understand the question. There's no beef. What's missing is
a sane and sober method of uniform inter-agency communications that
does NOT require a kludge, band-air, or technical abomination to
accomplish. In addition, the general lack of reliability of
infrastructure based communications (cellular, SMR, trunking) keeps
pointing to plain old simplex FM as the most reliable communications
method in case of a real disaster.
>Once again, it seems
>that the limitation is that you can only funnel a limited number
>of channels through the "big mixer".
Right. I was once driving in Smog Angeles when the Malibu hills were
on fire. I tuned to the local fire channels and only heard a little
traffic. However, when I ended up on Clamars (inter-agency
communications channel), the entire world was trying to talk on top of
each other. Everyone was on the two (now 7) channels because those
were the only channels that all the fire fighters radios had in
common.
>Perhaps some other geographic
>issues too, like having to backhaul a conversation from a fireman
>and a cop standing 1000 feet apart from each other to a command
>center 100's of miles away, for example.
They would be thrilled if they could just get to an inter-agency
dispatch center via radio instead of directly to the firefighters.
>I dunno. I just think it's a lot harder to implement than
>something that assumes that you've got working towers to
>communicate with. The options are far more limited, especially
>for long distances.
Agreed. My solution would be to REQUIRE a "talk around" channel in
all such complex infrastructure based repeater systems. The ability
to work simplex with the infrastructure goes away would have been a
big help.
>> In this light, I see the Cisco emergency "system" as a giant step
>> backwards.
>Why? Because it would encourage agencies to stick with their
>existing radios? That's true, but then again, I don't see why
>you couldn't plug-in new-fangled infrastructure-less radios into
>such a system like anything else, so it could offer a certain
>sort of "bridge" in that respect as well, from old to new.
No. Agencies hang onto their radios well past the point where they
should have been recycled. My main complaint about Cisco and friends
is the introduction of excessive complexity of dubious value. However,
this may not be the consensus among emergency managers, who seem to
value features and functions (while they're working).
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.usjeffl@cruzio.com
Reed Hundt's article on the benefits of municipal wireless 
Linear Mode
