| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 13th 05, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Dave wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... Responders' lack of spectrum 'cost lives' By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 9/12/2005 11:40 AM WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Former Sept. 11 commission Chairman Tom Kean says first responders in Louisiana not having had access to radio spectrum needed for interoperable communications "cost lives," as it did at the World Trade Center. their problem is not how much spectrum, but having some channels where they can all talk to each other. i would say that 2m would be good for them to confiscate, along with all the repeaters and existing radios that use it. this should give them a flexible enough chunk of spectrum, complete with an installed set of repeaters nation wide and a large number of easily reprogrammed radios that can do not only repeaters but simplex and even digital communications. Except that if they need some place wher they can all talk to each other, they sure as heck don't need the entire 2 meter band! That is of course unless they are pumping out a mighty wide signal. The idea is incorrect at it's very root. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#13
September 14th 05, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Hampton wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: K=D8HB wrote: Responders' lack of spectrum 'cost lives' By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 9/12/2005 11:40 AM WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Former Sept. 11 commission Chairman Tom Kean says first responders in Louisiana not having had access to radio spectrum needed for interoperable communications "cost lives," as it did at the World Trade Center. "On the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to each other because the radio communications don't work," Kean told CNN Sunday. "They haven't got enough what's called spectrum." . . . and on and on and on . . My ongoing understanding has been that there is already gobs of wide open UHF spectrum space already available via all the unused UHF TV channels. Even in very large metropolitan areas. Each one of those channels is 4 Mhz wide or something like that, how many emergency services NBFM channels can be squeezed into 4 Mhz? A *bunch*! I reali= ze that some of those TV-free channels are already being used by non-TV comms here and there but in every locale it seems to me that there's gotta be at least a few TV channels still wide open and available. Beats me . . Lotta nonsense in this article, bunch of clueless politicians going at it as usual. That is because it is monumentally easier to blame the problem on the bandwidth used by Television than it is to blame those actually responsible. No you are roughly half right below Fact is, if the trained communicators who can use the conditions of the various VHF/UHF, and HF bands to their advantage are called in at early notice, the emergency conditions can be handled quite proficiently. No extra bandwidth needed. Just trained and competent operators. the other thing needed is inteligent planing and prediection of what may be needed , but then I suppose you could say that was part of having trained and competent operators - Mike KB3EIA - What counts is what happens when things *don't* go according to plan and = one has to change mode, bands, or whatever. This may include, but not be limited to, mf, hf, vhf, uhf, fm, ssb, or digital modes (even including *gasp* cw). That separates the men from the boys. Indeed Flexiblity is good (if very rare thing these days) Indeed one thing I have always advcated (and which worked pretty weel around here this summer during fireseason) was that Ham stations should have dare I speak it CB radio capity as well, so when a fire caught eh 800mhz tower in the area and the ems folks switched to their CB back up we could help them by relaying from staions at one end of the fire to the other Jim NOT flaming just asking you to share Do you realy see some senario where in the current lack of use of CW outside the ARS that Morse encoded Cw would play a real role? If so please share, the best I have seen is some varraint on the Indepence Day one =20 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#14
September 14th 05, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Hampton wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: Responders' lack of spectrum 'cost lives' By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 9/12/2005 11:40 AM WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Former Sept. 11 commission Chairman Tom Kean says first responders in Louisiana not having had access to radio spectrum needed for interoperable communications "cost lives," as it did at the World Trade Center. "On the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to each other because the radio communications don't work," Kean told CNN Sunday. "They haven't got enough what's called spectrum." . . . and on and on and on . . My ongoing understanding has been that there is already gobs of wide open UHF spectrum space already available via all the unused UHF TV channels. Even in very large metropolitan areas. Each one of those channels is 4 Mhz wide or something like that, how many emergency services NBFM channels can be squeezed into 4 Mhz? A *bunch*! I realize that some of those TV-free channels are already being used by non-TV comms here and there but in every locale it seems to me that there's gotta be at least a few TV channels still wide open and available. Beats me . . Lotta nonsense in this article, bunch of clueless politicians going at it as usual. That is because it is monumentally easier to blame the problem on the bandwidth used by Television than it is to blame those actually responsible. No you are roughly half right below Fact is, if the trained communicators who can use the conditions of the various VHF/UHF, and HF bands to their advantage are called in at early notice, the emergency conditions can be handled quite proficiently. No extra bandwidth needed. Just trained and competent operators. the other thing needed is inteligent planing and prediection of what may be needed , but then I suppose you could say that was part of having trained and competent operators - Mike KB3EIA - What counts is what happens when things *don't* go according to plan and one has to change mode, bands, or whatever. This may include, but not be limited to, mf, hf, vhf, uhf, fm, ssb, or digital modes (even including *gasp* cw). That separates the men from the boys. Let us face it, the firemen, police and rescue workers are not trained in operating radios, save for mashing the PTT button. their training lies elsewhere, and they do a *lot* of training already. The idea that these non-RF oriented folks would know that say, it is 2000 hours, so they should switch to a different frequency, or that they need to get a message to someone 1000 miles away, but not 50 miles away, and at 3 in the afternoon, so they should use yet another frequency is just a little much to expect. So here we have the Hams, many of whom are trained and competent operators, and who are willing to volunteer their time and sometimes health, to helping others, not unlike volunteer firefighters. It isn't as dramatic in most cases, yet it is still volunteerism. Perhaps the Ham haters can focus their sharp wit on the volunteer fire fighters? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#15
September 14th 05, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "Jim Hampton" on Wed 14 Sep 2005 00:51
"an_old_friend" wrote in message Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: K=D8=88B wrote: Responders' lack of spectrum 'cost lives' By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 9/12/2005 11:40 AM WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Former Sept. 11 commission Chairman Tom Kean says first responders in Louisiana not having had access to radio spectrum needed for interoperable communications "cost lives," as it did at the World Trade Center. "On the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to each other because the radio communications don't work," Kean told CNN Sunday. "They haven't got enough what's called spectrum." . . . and on and on and on . . My ongoing understanding has been that there is already gobs of wide open UHF spectrum space already available via all the unused UHF TV channels. Even in very large metropolitan areas. Each one of those channels is 4 Mhz wide or something like that, how many emergency services NBFM channels can be squeezed into 4 Mhz? A *bunch*! I realize that some of those TV-free channels are already being used by non-TV comms here and there but in every locale it seems to me that there's gotta be at least a few TV channels still wide open and available. Beats me . . Lotta nonsense in this article, bunch of clueless politicians going at it as usual. That is because it is monumentally easier to blame the problem on the bandwidth used by Television than it is to blame those actually responsible. Everyone so far has been only partly right but mostly WRONG. There is considerable spectrum space on UHF and VHF and low microwaves to handle more than enough voice communications within LOS in any locale. Anyone who has been tracking the FCC allocations above 30 MHz for the last decade will know that and will also know that the move to DTV caused a massive re- alignment of broadcast TV channels, enough to free considerable spectrum at UHF. What reporter Waterman didn't get into involves other factors: 1. The vast majority of VHF-UHF radios used by public safety, utility, and businesses are one to four-channel fixed-frequency types. That is quite fine for ordinary operations. 2. The frequencies assigned to these PLMRS radios is decided by the frequency coordinating groups for the various land mobile radio services. Some searching around at the FCC site will uncover the names and address of all those frequency coordinators. 3. Only the Public Safety radio groups bother to get into so-called "emergency" (non-ordinary) frequencies which are not involved in their public safety real-emergency day-to- day operations. Some locales don't have such, others do. Those that NEED spectrum ALREADY have it. They do NOT have the capability to tune to every single channel possible; public safety agencies seldom NEED such capability in regular 24/7 day-to-day emergency communications. Fact is, if the trained communicators who can use the conditions of the various VHF/UHF, and HF bands to their advantage are called in at early notice, the emergency conditions can be handled quite proficiently. No extra bandwidth needed. Just trained and competent operators. The available equipment needs to be able to RE-tune to all-out- emergency channels. the other thing needed is inteligent planing and prediection of what may be needed , but then I suppose you could say that was part of having trained and competent operators What "training" and "competency" is needed with a single-channel push-to-talk handheld transceiver? That "training and competency" gets settled within a single day on nearly every police force and fire department in the USA. What counts is what happens when things *don't* go according to plan and o= ne has to change mode, bands, or whatever. This may include, but not be limited to, mf, hf, vhf, uhf, fm, ssb, or digital modes (even including *gasp* cw). That separates the men from the boys. Some of the "men" in authority in New Orleans didn't have their brains in right on the "planning" or the execution of any "plan." Plain simple fact was that the severity of hurrican Katrina and the breaching of dike/canal walls that caused all the flooding. [no comment on the idiocy of expanding a city in areas which are already BELOW lake and Gulf water levels] NO government agency radio base station is going to function UNDER water unless built for that; the operators of same can't be expected to work them. NO AMATEUR RADIO EQUIPMENT WILL WORK UNDER WATER EITHER. Don't anyone kid themselves or break arms patting each other on the back. Underwater training and competency is NOT in any ham radio disaster plan, classes, or certificates-of-completion. It's obvious that New Orleans city government needed to have MOBILE base stations for emergencies caused by such extensive flooding. Ask yourself if the New Orleans radio amateurs had anything like that or had ham equipment that would work under water. It should also be obvious that everyone concerned should have prepared for Force Five winds insofar as keeping radio antennas up and functioning. Few were. Mainly, those government antennas that did survive did so in greater numbers than ham antennas. If NOBODY can get through flooded areas to interior non-flooded areas by land vehicle, the only other possibility is by air. The most competent, trained, knowledgeable amateurs couldn't do it unless they also had access to helicopters. Any RICH hams in New Orleans? Ones rich enough to afford their own private helo? It's patently obvious that NO ONE in the New Orleans area had any remotely valid "plans" for much surviving 120 MPH and greater winds. Government, commercial, amateur, doesn't matter. Some COULD have had spare antennas and masts stowed in a robust shelter, antennas that could be erected reasonably quickly to get back "on the air." Some COULD have had spare electrical generators that would NOT be under water for the worst possible flood level rise. Then there would have to be spare radio equipment that would NOT be flooded or perhaps the base stations moved either to higher-than-flood- level ground or on upper stories. For the latter there would have to be emergency rations and accommodations for base station crews who might be stuck in their base operations whatever. New Orleans sits practically on the Gulf of Mexico and is exposed to hurricanes and tsunamis. That over half the city area is UNDER average adjacent water levels is remarkable in itself...if not stupid planning. In their growth they could have looked to the Netherlands for some ideas, Holland having centuries of experience in keeping out the sea. Did they? I don't know. Radio MODE or even Frequency discussions are DUMB and pointless if nearly everything of the equipment is under water or doesn't have good antenna structures. |
|
#16
September 14th 05, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: . . . . . . TV-free channels are already being used by non-TV comms here and there but in every locale it seems to me that there's gotta be at least a few TV channels still wide open and available. Beats me . . Lotta nonsense in this article, bunch of clueless politicians going at it as usual. That is because it is monumentally easier to blame the problem on the bandwidth used by Television than it is to blame those actually responsible. That part of it is ignorable media fluff. Fact is, if the trained communicators who can use the conditions of the various VHF/UHF, and HF bands to their advantage are called in at early notice, the emergency conditions can be handled quite proficiently. No extra bandwidth needed. Just trained and competent operators. Don't agree. First responders are not "radio operators", they're firefighters, medics, police at multiple levels and all the rest. Given a big enough disaster like the New Orleans hurricane onsite FEMA operatives, the Coast Guard, any number of military units from all the services also land in the middle of it. All any of 'em care about is to be able to squeeze their mic button and make the right things happen right now so that they can get back to the reasons they're where they are. Expecting them to competently fiddle-fart with some 500 channel HT or another puts the onus on them if they can't "get through". Ain't gonna happen, no way, nohow. What I think should happen is the development and deployment of some sort of "super" emergency operations centers staffed by highly trained dispatchers who know how to seamlessly patch the first responder specialists making the initial call into the specific specialists they need to contact. "Center Medic 23-7, I need a chopper to airlift, I have a patient in critical condition." 23-7s exact location pops up on the dispatcher's GPS/radar screen as does the location of a USGG chopper which is a half mile away from the medic and his patient. The dispatcher punches a button then and tells 23-7 he's plugged into the chopper. 23-7 tells the chopper what he needs. "OK 23-7, this is Coast Guard Delta six, got it. I'm two minutes out coming in from the southwest." Done. Build these centers into long-range air-refuelable aircraft which can be anywhere over the U.S within hours when they're needed and can loiter over the area for days at FL 30. The military has had AWACS birds with this basic type set of capabilities for decades. They work. We need a few quasi-civil versions. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
|
#17
September 14th 05, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
September 14th 05, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Don't agree. First responders are not "radio operators", they're firefighters, medics, police at multiple levels and all the rest. Given a big enough disaster like the New Orleans hurricane onsite FEMA operatives, the Coast Guard, any number of military units from all the services also land in the middle of it. I must not have made myself clear Brian. The answer is not in freeing up the BW now occupied by analog television. The answer for communications in a disaster is trained and competent operators. I agree with all that. And the trained operators should be called in when the regular comms first go out, not after a few days. I don't agree here - depending on what I think you mean by "trained operators". Local governments can't train and store reserve dispatchers who are only activated for drills in preparation for major emergencies, won't work. Emergency dispatching is an art and skill which has to be used on a very regular basis or the dispatchers lose the edge they need to do the job properly when a "big one" hits unexpectedly. In those cases the local authorities can call up all shifts of their regular crews to get a sufficient amount of manpower and their reserve radios on the air. But in order to get any benefit out of an approach like this the dispatch centers have to be able to almost immediately be expanded and able to keep operating thru hell and high water for an extended period. None of those type facilities are in place that I've ever heard about. What I think should happen is the development and deployment of some sort of "super" emergency operations centers staffed by highly trained dispatchers who know how to seamlessly patch the first responder specialists making the initial call into the specific specialists they need to contact. I doubt that there will be the money for that. Good idea tho'. A couple $80 million civil AWACs planes and $10 million a year to maintain and staff 'em is chicken feed. Problem is that Haliburton will have already drained the till before Boeing and Motorola get their passes at it. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
|
#19
September 14th 05, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Don't agree. First responders are not "radio operators", they're firefighters, medics, police at multiple levels and all the rest. Given a big enough disaster like the New Orleans hurricane onsite FEMA operatives, the Coast Guard, any number of military units from all the services also land in the middle of it. I must not have made myself clear Brian. The answer is not in freeing up the BW now occupied by analog television. The answer for communications in a disaster is trained and competent operators. I agree with all that. And the trained operators should be called in when the regular comms first go out, not after a few days. I don't agree here - depending on what I think you mean by "trained operators". Local governments can't train and store reserve dispatchers who are only activated for drills in preparation for major emergencies, won't work. Emergency dispatching is an art and skill which has to be used on a very regular basis or the dispatchers lose the edge they need to do the job properly when a "big one" hits unexpectedly. In those cases the local authorities can call up all shifts of their regular crews to get a sufficient amount of manpower and their reserve radios on the air. But in order to get any benefit out of an approach like this the dispatch centers have to be able to almost immediately be expanded and able to keep operating thru hell and high water for an extended period. None of those type facilities are in place that I've ever heard about. What I think should happen is the development and deployment of some sort of "super" emergency operations centers staffed by highly trained dispatchers who know how to seamlessly patch the first responder specialists making the initial call into the specific specialists they need to contact. I doubt that there will be the money for that. Good idea tho'. A couple $80 million civil AWACs planes and $10 million a year to maintain and staff 'em is chicken feed. Problem is that Haliburton will have already drained the till before Boeing and Motorola get their passes at it. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv it seems like the key is that there is no bridge between the various agencies that can coordinate the activities. the red herring is that their radios can't talk to each other. in most metro areas there are adequate frequencies and equipment to coordinate the local activities, and plenty of dispatchers to do the job... keeping them on the air during a disaster may be a problem that could be addressed, but its not a frequency allocation question, its more of making sure they have adequate facilities and backups. I would bet that most police and fire and even local emergency operating center personnel would agree that they would not want the feds showing up and starting to talk to them on their existing frequencies, they are going to be busy enough with their own work and don't need an outside group showing up trying to 'help' them who isn't familiar with their normal operating procedures, the area, the people, and all that other stuff. what would appear to be needed is a way for fema, national guard, coast guard, etc to get coordinated with the local authorities... and to do that there are really 2 or 3 levels of coordination needed: 1. planning, pre-positioning, testing, training, all that stuff that happens BEFORE a disaster. all the plans in the world are great until you walk into the eoc and can't plug in your equipment because the connectors are wrong, or the local official starts talking about doing one thing and the plan you have in hand calls for something else. 2. strategic coordination... that high level, big area, stuff... the governor's level decisions vs feds and national agencies about when to send them in, where and when are they to take over operations and who has over all control, when to evacuate and where to, etc. this would seem to be one of the big areas where Louisiana had problems. 3. tactical coordination... this seems to be where some people think the problem is, this is where frequency allocations and equipment compatibility come into play. i.e. what happens when the local red cross and national guard meet the local fire department at the evacuation center, who talks to who and on what radio and using which jargon. I don't think in most cases that this really requires all that much new stuff, if the first two levels of coordination have been worked out then this should be simple... get one person from each agency that needs to work together and sit them down in a fixed or mobile command post and let them do their thing. frequent training of these groups is one thing that is probably missing these days... how often do radio operators and officers from national guard units, fema, and other agencies sit down and run exercises with local police and fire and redcross and hams? |
|
#20
September 14th 05, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote Lotta nonsense in this article, bunch of clueless politicians going at it as usual. I have a real hard time believing anyone has been killed by a spectrum shortage. Or did Katrina suck up all the RF spectrum when it came thru. I wonder how they would have fared if comm managers had paid more attention to survivability (site/antenna/power generation integrity, generator shielding/protection/placement/fuel availability). This isn't quite as glamorous as whiz-bang Trunking & Mobile data systems but it's certainly more important. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 36534 Mining the Web: eigenVectors, Kriging, Inverse DistanceWeighting Searches 36534 | Policy | |||
| 34243 Mining the Web :Searches with Kriging, Inverse DistanceWeighting, eigenVectors and Cross-Pollination 34243 | CB | |||
| 85118 Mining the Web: Jacobian Matrix Constructs with eigenVectorSearching 85118 | Swap | |||
| 785d chain search | Scanner | |||
Linear Mode
