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 -

"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.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

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

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 -

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.

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

wrote:
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.


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.

And the trained operators should be called in when the regular comms
first go out, not after a few days.



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.

I agree. I even said that in another post (except I said "mash the PTT
button". 8^)



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'.

"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 -

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

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?

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