FCC to Host First Responders Summit

"The Democrats and other liberals simply do not want the PEOPLE to have that much control over their own lives....."

Democrats want you to be dependant upon them for everything, including your own protection, because they know what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to realize how smart they are and how dumb you are.

In Washington D.C., with strict gun control, has crime that is out of control. Why? Because honest citizens can't own a gun and defend themselves from armed thugs. Only the criminals have guns. And that is how democrats like it. The only people that should have guns are the body guards of Chuck Shumer & Hillary Clinton.

Welcome to a liberal democrat world.

 

Yup. Contrast with Texas: When Gov. G.W. Bush got the "Right to Carry Law" passed, violent crime dropped about 25%.

The same thing has happened in EVERY state that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons. Every state that issues a permit requires mandatory training and mandatory criminal background checks. Some also require checks to ensure that all taxes have been paid.

Translation: Criminals are far less likely to attack someone who just MIGHT be able to shoot them.

 

I used to be able to vote for people on both sides of the aisle. There were men and women of honor -- who honorably disagreed -- and honorably respected each other until and unless that respect was DEFINITELY SHOWN to be misplaced.

Today, the Democratic Party's "caucuses" (which are carefully controlled) prevent any non-ultra-liberal candidate from being selected. The sad thing is that this has forced many very good people out of the Democratic Party.

We need good, strong, DEDICATED people who have WORKED for a living at some point in their lives on both sides of the ailse. Today, one typically finds those who have had to earn a living on only one side of the ailse -- and it isn't the Democratic side. Most Democrats in the House and Senate today fall into the "given money" or (like Kerry) "married money" categories.

For a group that TALKS of helping "the little man", the liberals sure don't DO much of it. A very telling study showed that those who class themselves as "conservative" gave to charities almost 90% more than those who claimed to be "liberal", and they gave much more per person. (Average incomes on both sides were nearly the same.)

 

PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE ! ! !

Do any of you whiners have a clue???
Have you forgotten Hurricane Katrina?

Because of the loss of communications in the Gulf Coast and the major amount of injury and loss of life that could have been prevented had communications been restored sooner, our Federal Government has MANDATED the implimentation of Amateur Radio as part of the FIRST RESPONDER network throughout the entire nation, supplying funds for AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS in Municipal buildings as well as local hospitals that have the ability to handle trauma patients.
This is old news and you people are making fools of yourselves by speculating on what might be when the powers that be are actually putting US, the licensed communicators into the positions  that  you doomsayers are touting  that we have no place in and that  this is gonna happen and thats going to be taken away...

How do I know this? I AM involved in the implimentation of this mandate in my municipality and the metropolitan counties surrounding it.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to get out from behind the mic and keyboards and get ACTIVE!

Scott
N9TGW

 

When a product is marketed as something that it really isn't, the general public will believe the marketing because there are laws against false advertising. So if you sell them a rock that they can make phone calls on, it's no longer a rock, it's a phone.

It hits everyone, in every venue. Do you have a bumper on your car? Guess again! Bumpers by definition prevent body damage, but what is on the modern auto is designed to be crushed and carry that force right back into the body of the car to absorb the force of the impact, not to prevent body damage... All the general public cares about what a product does for them, not what it really is.

Scott
N9TGW

 

Interesting, what is your basis for proving this statement? It is very general. For a specific counter-example, I was once fired from a public university in a very liberal state largely because the ex-chairman was a fanatical conservative who didn't want any liberals in the department. He also thought Nixon was framed and that apartheit was okay.

Incidentally, it is very difficult to remove tenured professors, liberal or conservative, so it's hard to see how they are being kicked out, thoguh their getting tenure is another issue (and there are plenty of conservative colleges too).

I'll agree that a fair number of people across the political spectrum and in many occupations are intolerant of other views; that's too bad and certainly against what America should be. As I see it, the bottom line is that we all want what is best for the country. While I consider the current gang in Washington to be extremely dangerous for America and the world, and you (and many others) apparently disagree, we can do this as civilized people, carrying over the good habits of tolerance that we really should show on the air. That, incidentally, is about the only relationship I can see between most of these threads and our hobby.

 

N9TGW writes:

"Because of the loss of communications in the Gulf Coast and the major amount of injury and loss of life that could have been prevented had communications been restored sooner...."

What are you saying?  That ham radio could have prevented:

a) PHONY reports of gang-rapes in the Superdome?
b) Deaths in flooded hospitals and nursing homes?
c) Deaths from armed gang-banger thugs?
d) Deaths because people were too dumb to leave?
e) BOGUS media reports of 10,000 deaths that NEVER OCCURRED?
f) Ferikhan's BOGUS claim that Bush blew up the levy?

THE TRUTH IS that Ham radio could have prevented NONE of these.  Think ham radio could have gotten those hundreds of school busses moving when Ray Nagen, Democrat Lousiana, wanted luxury Greyhound busses? Get real.

Some people have a HYPER-INFLATED image of what ham radio can do.

 

Anybody that does not think that college campi are HUGE, PUBLLICLY FUNDED bastions of FAR LEFT thinking is ignoring reality. Most public college campi are as far left as your average newsroom at ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC & PBS, where 79% of the staff ADMIT to being liberal.

THE FACT IS THAT YOU CAN'T GET TENURE IF YOU ARE NOT A FAR LEFT THINKER.

 

I would like to believe Public Safety representatives will absorb floor time, especially local/state/federal reps, such as APCO, Project 25, and federal interoperability officials.  Business leaders will be there -- listening and commenting when called upon.  The national public safety reps are verbose.

73.

 

APCO was co-opted years ago. They actually were a driving force behind the 800 MHz "public safety" nonsense that removed much interoperability and wasted tens of millions of our tax dollars.

Fortunately, many cities (Dallas among them) flatly REFUSED to move to 800 MHz. Dallas actually built and tested a system, but discovered that it would not support police and fire as well as the existing 460 MHz multi-channel multi-site voting repeater system. The 800 MHz system is still used, but only for non-critical and administrative communications like garbage trucks, public works, and code enforcement.

Interestingly, all of the federal agencies and all surrounding cities utilize the Dallas 460 MHz system for response to bank holdups and for tracking of radio packs embedded in the stolen money. The usable range is far greater than any other radio system.

 

There's some truth to land mobile companies' pushing 700/800 MHz systems, especially with the onset of the new 700 MHz band.  Much hope is pinned on this new and dedicated band (700 MHz), and are controlled by each state's Regional Planning Committees (RPC), only licensed by the FCC per RPC endorsement.

The roughly 63 MHz of spectrum that makeup the new and dedicated 700 MHz & 4.9 GHz public safety bands will provide unparalleled comms capabilities for first responders well into the future.  I'm afraid the UHF band will be vacated in larger metro areas (large PS systems will move).  It's already begun... I could site ongoing efforts in this area, but don't have the time.

 

There's some truth to land mobile companies' pushing 700/800 MHz systems, especially with the onset of the new 700 MHz band. Much hope is pinned on this new and dedicated band (700 MHz), controlled by each state's SIEC (not the FCC).

The roughly 100 MHz of spectrum that makeup the new and dedicated 700 MHz & 4.9 GHz public safety bands will provide unparalleled comms capabilities for first responders well into the future. I'm afraid the UHF band will be vacated in larger metro areas (large PS systems will move). It's already begun... I could site ongoing efforts in this area, but don't have the time.[/QUOTE]
Funny, but that is the IDENTICAL argument made for 800 MHz.

1. Imagine the cost for a state the size of Texas to change all Public Safety over to 700 MHz. (Hint: It cost over 1.5 million for a two site system for the City of Richardson. This city has an area of 27.4 square miles that fits within a rectangle roughly 7 miles by 5 miles.)

1.a) At 268,581 square miles, Texas occupies about 7 percent of the total water and land area of the United States. For perspective, Texas is as large as all of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina combined.

2. Imagine the tremendous loss of coverage that would happen at 700/800 MHz versus either the EXISTING statewide (and adjacent state and US Forestry Service) interoperability for fire departments on 153/154 MHz, for state police and county sheriffs (and some local PD) on 155 MHz through 159 MHz, and for metropolitan areas on 460 MHz. (Even the smaller departments that fell victim to the 800 MHz nonsense still carry 460 MHz radios in the cars of sergeants and above.)

3. Imagine the public outrage when critical calls were missed.

700 MHz and 800 MHz systems provide virtually identical coverage. If 800 doesn't work, why would 700 ?

700 MHz is only an answer to a really bad question, because it does NOT meet the needs of ANY state. It is a VERY short-range system that requires multiple "Cell Sites" (they differ only in name) and a very fragile infrastructure to connect those sites. In a disaster it WILL fail -- just as every system around HAS failed. You are replacing a radio that offers a range of 30 to 60 miles (to/from a mobile) with a 500 mW handi-talkie that is a cellular telephone in disguise and offers a range of MAYBE three miles to a "Cell site" -- or less than one mile "car-to-car" (which is all that's left when the system fails).

Do the math ! One repeater at a cost of maybe $10,000 to cover a radius of 30 miles, versus close to a hundred "Cell sites" to cover the same area. I can put in a "Cadillac" system with redundant voting repeaters on multiple channels at several physically separated sites for an absolutely "bullet-proof" ZERO down-time conventional VHF or UHF system for less than one-tenth the cost of a "minimal" 700/800 MHz system. Greater reliability. Greater availability. MUCH greater range. Virtually GUARANTEED survivability for ANY disaster. FAR less cost.

 

NL7W says:

I'm not talking about the Cyren-Call sharing proposal or some Nextel-like system...

It's early, but some 700 MHz systems are being designed and built right now.  Besides being a former federal telecommunications program manager advocating interoperability for local/state/federal Public Safety (PS) entities, I'm presently a Sr. Engineer for a new and compliant 700 MHz system being designed/installed.  So, I speak with past and current knowledge/authority on the subject.  

Currently, Public Safety (PS) related integrated voice and data radio systems being built on 700 MHz are dedicated, trunked, Project 25 (P25) compliant systems -- specifically for PS or related government use only.  They meet the Fed's mandated P25 and/or interoperability compliance requirements going forward.  Portable and mobile subscribers use multi-watt hand-held and high-power (15 - 35W) radios.  They must be fully P25 compliant to obtain the millions in federal funding that have been funneled to states nationwide -- and into the future.  These digital (IP) radio systems are flexible and, if need be, could easily integrate or "connect" with other like systems meeting P25's new integrated subsystem interface (ISSI) standards.

Technically speaking, the 450 to 470 MHz (UHF) band may well be the sweet-spot regarding urban/suburban propagation characteristics (distance, penetration, fading, and other factors).  But, the bandwidth needs for future, fully digital, IP radio systems isn't realistically there or available.  

The new PS-dedicated bands offer hope for tomorrow's integrated and secure voice and data networks -- through decent bandwidth availability (for voice and data) and prop characteristics on the 700 MHz band (under 1 GHz), as well as the high-speed capabilities of the 4.9 GHz band.  Blazingly fast point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and hotspot capabilities exist on the new 50 MHz-wide 4.9 GHz band.  Mesh networking is being accomplished and integrated in select cities.  More will come as sharing agreements are implemented by various local/state/federal agencies who must coordinate, and potentially share, this band's wireless infrastructure (each state's 4.9 licensees have jurisdictionally-bound licenses assigned by their RPC).  

Today and in the future, you will see public safety vehicles installed with router/switches to handle the myriad of voice and data capabilities available to them.  Cisco, for example, is touting a PS-related, mobile vehicle, router/switch today.  It offers a configurable ability to route/switch (connect) multiple wireless (WAN) ports from various available private and public wireless networks to the vehicle's wireless and/or wired Local Area Network (LAN) -- connecting the many IP devices found in PS vehicles today.  

PS analog operations are dying in metro and suburban communities, as mandated digital networks are funded and created.  It's inevitable... sorta like the demise of the code requirement -- for which I'm still miffed.

Keeping true to the original topic of this thread, I suspect the FCC, at their meeting(s), will continue to advocate for their reduced involvement in the PS licensure process -- wanting to hand-off more responsibilities to coordinating agencies like APCO, the RPCs, and federal government organizations, like NLECTC-RM, who are handling the new 700 MHz band's national databasing efforts.

73.

 

Like I said, manufacturers see dollars. Those of us in the field see only the times we have been called out when the "state of the art" P25 trunked systems failed -- and the miserably short range they have in "talk around" mode.

The idiots that are pushing this have their heads so deep that we may never see their ears. Billions will be wasted, and we will have to revert to the "old technology" to communicate when the overly complex and unreliable trunked systems fail. (Which explains what we have done every time the trunked systems went down -- and what we will do the next time that they fail.)

Just HOW does one cost justify the many cell sites required to cover a county with an area of 3000 square miles and a population of less than 5000 ? It simply is not possible !

People in the Northeast and in small states have no earthly idea what is required to cover a state -- especially one the size of Texas. They design unban solutions, then try to foist them upon the REAL world.

And, let's not forget that those "millions in federal funds" are MY money and YOUR money that is being wasted on something that a) is not needed, b) is not wanted, c) is extremely vulnerable to failure in a disaster, d) is extremely vulnerable to any terror attack (and a VERY inviting target), and e) DESTROYS the interoperability that already EXISTS in many locations.

Yep. Costs lots of money. Solves NO known problem.
In Texas, we call that a "Pork Barrel Project".