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."

News media last week reported that police forces in New Orleans City
and the three surrounding parishes all use different and incompatible
radio equipment.

Experts say that proper equipment and training and freeing up more
and better frequencies are essential pre-requisites for reaching the
holy grail of full communications interoperability for first
responders.

Kean said a bill in Congress to provide more spectrum was
stalled. "Nothing has been happening, and again, people on the
ground -- police, fire, medical personnel -- couldn't talk to each
other."

"That's outrageous and it's a scandal and I think it cost lives," he
concluded.

At issue are the recommendations of a 1995 congressional panel that,
as TV broadcasters transitioned to digital transmission -- which
takes up a much smaller fraction of the spectrum -- the frequencies
freed up would be allocated to first responders.

Now a bipartisan group of lawmakers is making a new push for the
legislation.

"We have not kept the promise we made 10 years ago," said Rep. Jane
Harman, D-Calif., calling the situation "a black eye" and "an
embarrassment" for lawmakers.

She and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., have written to Speaker of the
House Rep. Denny Hastert, R-Ill., to ask for a suspension of the
normal rules of debate so that a bill to enforce a deadline for
handing the relevant frequencies to first responders can be passed
this week.

In the Senate, a similar measure, sponsored by John McCain, R-Ariz.,
and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., is currently before the Commerce, Science
and Transportation Committee.

Spokesman Amy Call said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R.-Tenn,
was working with Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Ted Stevens, R-
Alaska to try and get that bill to the floor soon, too.

"The Leader saw first hand on the ground the challenges, and is
working with several members about further fixes in this area," Call
told United Press International at the weekend.

The parts of the spectrum identified by the 1995 Public Safety
Wireless Advisory Committee report are in the high 700-Mhz range --
which experts say is ideal for use by emergency services because
signals sent over these frequencies can penetrate walls and travel
long distances.

"This (part of the spectrum) is prime real estate," said Yucel Ors of
the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, a non-
profit that represents first responder and emergency management
communications specialists.

But, he added, "There are squatters on it," referring to the TV
broadcasters.

The law passed in response to the 1995 report set a Jan. 1, 2007,
target date for broadcasters to free up that part of the spectrum.

"But there's a huge get out for them," a congressional staffer who
has worked on the issue told United Press International. Broadcasters
are not required to relinquish their spectrum allocation until 85
percent of households in their market have the equipment needed to
receive digital signals.

The staffer said that this creates "a chicken and egg" problem --
without a firm date for the transition from analogue, there is no
incentive for viewers or broadcasters to upgrade to digital
equipment, and penetration remains well below the 85 percent baseline
in most major markets.

Broadcasters and their supporters say that imposing a deadline would
penalize those viewers who cannot afford new equipment, and that
households replace electronic goods like TV sets every few years,
arguing this should lead eventually to major markets crossing the 85
percent threshold.

But Michael Powell, then chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, testified last year to the Senate commerce committee that
the 85 percent penetration test could result in transition being
delayed for "decades or multiple decades."

"It is time to tell the broadcasters to get out of the way," said
Weldon, blaming "the lethargy of Congress -- both parties and both
chambers" for the failure to move on this issue before.

Ors said that broadcasters had also lobbied hard against a
deadline. "They have more resources than we do," he said, "First
responders are busy on the front lines, we don't have as much time as
they do to lobby Congress."

Experts are keen to stress that spectrum is just one of the pieces in
the interoperability jigsaw.

"Even if the ... deadline is imposed," said the congressional
staffer, "this is going to take some time."

The other pieces of the puzzle include equipment and training, but as
Ors points out, even in these areas, delays in freeing up the
spectrum become a problem.

"Until there's a firm date (for the transition) public safety
agencies can't make the investments in the equipment they need" to
make use of the new frequencies, he told UPI, adding that
manufacturers were also loath to spend money developing and marketing
equipment which could remain effectively unusable until some yet-to-
be-determined date in the future.

But the trickiest piece of all, according to the congressional
staffer, is what he called "the human element," and Ors refers to as
planning.

"Without clear planning (by neighboring jurisdictions), without
proper staffing and training, you can have all the spectrum and
equipment you need and it won't get you there," said Ors.

"There are cultural problems between fire departments and police
forces and (emergency medical services)," said the congressional
staffer.

And in huge disasters like Hurricane Katrina has caused, a lack of
interoperability can be the least of first responder worries.

Kenneth Moran, acting director of the homeland security office in the
Federal Communications Commission, told a House Energy and Commerce
Committee hearing Wednesday that interoperability had been only one
among many problems in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- which
blew down transmission towers and cut power in huge swathes of the
Gulf coast.

"We did see interoperability problems," he said, "But the biggest
problems we saw initially were things that were needed to get the
(cellular and broadcast) networks up and that tended to be security
issues, staging of personnel to get them in there and ... also trying
to get fuel (for generators) into the areas until the power would
come up."

But responders say that -- in a situation of prolonged crisis like
the one in Louisiana -- the time before and after the towers go down
and the power goes off is as important as any other.

"Good, strong communications help you prepare better and recover
faster," said Harlin McEwen, a retired FBI official and the chairman
of the communications and technology committee of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-033839-5152r


--
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Member:
ARRL http://www.arrl.org
SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc
VWOA http://www.vwoa.org
A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/
TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org
MWA http://www.w0aa.org
TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org
FISTS http://www.fists.org
LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm
NCI http://www.nocode.org

Sure, they can nibble at the ham bands. But there's not much spectrum
to be had from them below 400 MHz. All of 6, 2 and 220 only adds up to
about two TV channels.

What you're really seeing is a push to end NTSC TV transmissions, and
go to DTV exclusively.

IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Sure, they can nibble at the ham bands. But there's not much spectrum
to be had from them below 400 MHz. All of 6, 2 and 220 only adds up to
about two TV channels.

What you're really seeing is a push to end NTSC TV transmissions, and
go to DTV exclusively.

IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

I'm not sure they'd want anything below UHF. If you are inside of a steel
building, I suspect they'd be better off at higher frequencies as they will
tend to bounce around and find an egress far easier than VHF.

A 6 meter HT is going to have antenna/ground efficiency problems as well.
It is far better than 10 (or 11, for that matter), but still is limited with
a small antenna and a far from satisfactory ground. Plus the wavelength is
going to have a difficult time getting outside of a building.

2 meters is better, but still lacking. 440 is better, but up around 1 GHz
would probably be better than the VHF television channels.



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Sure, they can nibble at the ham bands. But there's not much spectrum
to be had from them below 400 MHz. All of 6, 2 and 220 only adds up to
about two TV channels.

What you're really seeing is a push to end NTSC TV transmissions, and
go to DTV exclusively.

IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

Hello

I'm not sure they'd want anything below UHF. If you are inside of a steel
building, I suspect they'd be better off at higher frequencies as they will
tend to bounce around and find an egress far easier than VHF.

A 6 meter HT is going to have antenna/ground efficiency problems as well.
It is far better than 10 (or 11, for that matter), but still is limited with
a small antenna and a far from satisfactory ground. Plus the wavelength is
going to have a difficult time getting outside of a building.

2 meters is better, but still lacking. 440 is better, but up around 1 GHz
would probably be better than the VHF television channels.

Agreed on all that but what I'm saying is that it's not what that blurb
is really all about.

As Hans, K0HB and others have pointed out, the big problems in NO
aren't about lack of spectrum. They're about lack of planning and lack
of good system design.

What I think that blurb is really all about is the desire fo some to
turn off their NTSC TV transmitters. And I can't say I blame them.

Most TV stations here in Philly are simulcasting DTV and NTSC. That's
expensive, both in tower rental, power and labor costs, and because the
NTSC stuff is all going to be worthless when they finally shut it down.

The migration to DTV has taken a long time and it's going nowhere fast.
The stores keep selling NTSC TVs, VCRs, etc., so the 'installed base'
isn't shrinking. DTV sets still cost a pretty penny, and if someone
doesn't watch that much TV it's not a high priority to replace an NTSC
set.

How many more years and dollars before they can shut off the old NTSC
transmitter? That's the big issue.

One solution is to distribute set-top boxes that convert DTV signals to
NTSC, so that you can watch the DTV transmissions on your NTSC set,
tape them on VHS, etc. But who is going to pay for it?

By wrapping the issue in disaster-communications bunting, the whole
thing can be made to look as if it's in the national interest to shut
down NTSC broadcasting ASAP. The red herring is that the freed-up
spectrum will somehow enhance disaster comms.

---

You get down to the museum yet? They have a working pre-NTSC B&W/color
TV set complete with color wheel...

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Sure, they can nibble at the ham bands. But there's not much spectrum
to be had from them below 400 MHz. All of 6, 2 and 220 only adds up to
about two TV channels.

What you're really seeing is a push to end NTSC TV transmissions, and
go to DTV exclusively.

IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

Hello

I'm not sure they'd want anything below UHF. If you are inside of a steel
building, I suspect they'd be better off at higher frequencies as they will
tend to bounce around and find an egress far easier than VHF.

A 6 meter HT is going to have antenna/ground efficiency problems as well.
It is far better than 10 (or 11, for that matter), but still is limited with
a small antenna and a far from satisfactory ground. Plus the wavelength is
going to have a difficult time getting outside of a building.

2 meters is better, but still lacking. 440 is better, but up around 1 GHz
would probably be better than the VHF television channels.

Agreed on all that but what I'm saying is that it's not what that blurb
is really all about.

As Hans, K0HB and others have pointed out, the big problems in NO
aren't about lack of spectrum. They're about lack of planning and lack
of good system design.

What I think that blurb is really all about is the desire fo some to
turn off their NTSC TV transmitters. And I can't say I blame them.

Most TV stations here in Philly are simulcasting DTV and NTSC. That's
expensive, both in tower rental, power and labor costs, and because the
NTSC stuff is all going to be worthless when they finally shut it down.

The migration to DTV has taken a long time and it's going nowhere fast.
The stores keep selling NTSC TVs, VCRs, etc., so the 'installed base'
isn't shrinking. DTV sets still cost a pretty penny, and if someone
doesn't watch that much TV it's not a high priority to replace an NTSC
set.

or watchs mostly news type shows (I really don't need a HDTV pic of
Bill ORiely or Neil Cavuto) But localy NO HDTV is avable at all and
DVDs don't take advantage iof it so why should I pay for one?

How many more years and dollars before they can shut off the old NTSC
transmitter? That's the big issue.

One solution is to distribute set-top boxes that convert DTV signals to
NTSC, so that you can watch the DTV transmissions on your NTSC set,
tape them on VHS, etc. But who is going to pay for it?

By wrapping the issue in disaster-communications bunting, the whole
thing can be made to look as if it's in the national interest to shut
down NTSC broadcasting ASAP. The red herring is that the freed-up
spectrum will somehow enhance disaster comms.

---

You get down to the museum yet? They have a working pre-NTSC B&W/color
TV set complete with color wheel...

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 03:43


Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message


What I think that blurb is really all about is the desire fo some to
turn off their NTSC TV transmitters. And I can't say I blame them.

Okay, so you DON'T understand the coding system of DTV that
evolved through MPEG and the Grand Alliance. Use all those
"IQ smarts" and that double degree to understand it. The
Grand Alliance test program was long and thorough (8 years?)
and has plenty of literature to eddicate you.

Most TV stations here in Philly are simulcasting DTV and NTSC. That's
expensive, both in tower rental, power and labor costs, and because the
NTSC stuff is all going to be worthless when they finally shut it down.

No, it won't be "worthless" sweetums. You've never worked in
any TV station and don't know what's involved. The NTSC video
transmitter is basically a linear AM type and can transmit
ANY digital signal fed to it. Yes, it will require a few add-
ons to meet whatever DTV specs there are, but it can be made
compatible. The basic ham HF transmitter is really a SSB (AM)
linear yet it can do on-off keying with just a few circuit
changes built-in. Same, same.

The NTSC aural transmitter is straight Class C for FM. It can
be altered and retuned to FM BC or any other FM transmit
frequency in VHF or UHF.

ALL of the RGB camera/film/slide/tape "studio" equipment is the
SAME for either system. That's what is being used NOW for all
those simulcasts. Video and audio control consoles are the
Same. Same = Same in math terms.

The major thing added between NTSC and DTV is the ENCODER for
DTV and the necessary "air monitors" to monitor the transmitters.

All those Tektronix (and others') "vector scopes" will be
obsolete. So are things like the Local Subcarrier Generator
and Synchronizer for NTSC. Not major cost items.

Philadelphia is NOT the center of United States television
production...just one of many major market areas in the USA.

The migration to DTV has taken a long time and it's going nowhere fast.

On the contrary. New DTV transmitters for locales requiring
channel reassignments have been sold and installed for some
time. They ARE working out fine.

The stores keep selling NTSC TVs, VCRs, etc., so the 'installed base'
isn't shrinking.

Those same stores (Circuit City, Best Buy, et al) are doing
just fine selling LCD/Plasma/Projection DISPLAY units that are
COMPATIBLE. You need to read the advertisements more often.
Check out the DVDs which are rapidly REPLACING mag tape.

DTV sets still cost a pretty penny, and if someone
doesn't watch that much TV it's not a high priority to replace an NTSC
set.

I just don't see any marketing person coming to you for
"customer insight" on what to sell! :-)

How many more years and dollars before they can shut off the old NTSC
transmitter? That's the big issue.

How many years before YOU decide to go solid-state in a ham
transmitter you "designed and built for yourself?" :-)

One solution is to distribute set-top boxes that convert DTV signals to
NTSC, so that you can watch the DTV transmissions on your NTSC set,
tape them on VHS, etc. But who is going to pay for it?

Real customers is who. [not you, of course...]

Get a clue. DVD has replaced magnetic tape for recordable TV.
Check any TV rental store. Read those ads you ignore. DVD
RECORDERS are available. My wife's computer has a DVD recorder
built-in as well as DVD playback through the computer. With a
thin flat-screen display the linearity is superb and so is the
"gamma" (linearity of contrast/brightness).

DTV Coupled with DVD recording and thin flat-screen displays
is a whole order of magnitude BETTER than Betamax ever was.
VHS mag tape recording got excellent a decade ago and the
prices have been dropping while the general economy has grown
more expensive. VHS is doomed, has been doomed by DVD, just
as much as CDs doomed the vinyl disc recording. CDs and DVDs
are BETTER than the old media.

Cable TV is now the leading TV input to households nationwide.
Cable TV is cutting over to digital transmission from the
head end to neighborhoods, the neighborhoods having ALREADY
added a second cable line in many service areas. Nearly all
Cable services offer rentable set-top-boxes to decode digital
into analog TV visual-aural or NTSC RF. My wife and I have
one of those with its own remote and extra services such as
"view-on-demand" (a bit like TiVo, but only in general).
We get MORE free channels plus more premium channels plus
some two dozen free audio-only "channels" just for listening.
Superior picture, no RFI as was once seen on analog service.
Yes, it costs more. Yes, there is more pleasure with it.

Wife and I bought a little palm-sized still/motion-picture
camera (with image stabilization) that records in a 512M
or 1Gig memory chip. Costs less than $200. The Panasonic
still camera that records on a SuperDisk (size of a 3 1/2"
floppy, holds over 450 images in hi-res) cost $600 in 2000.
Still works fine. Technology just keeps getting better.
Maybe you want to make that some paranoic charge to defeat
Eastman Kodak? Sorry, Eastman is doing digital cameras too.

By wrapping the issue in disaster-communications bunting, the whole
thing can be made to look as if it's in the national interest to shut
down NTSC broadcasting ASAP. The red herring is that the freed-up
spectrum will somehow enhance disaster comms.

Tsk, tsk. You should take your anti-paranoia pills REGULARLY.

The DTV channel reassignment FREED UP SPECTRUM for MANY radio
services. If you had followed the Mass Media Bureau and OET
at the FCC you would have seen that...and the several auctions
for users ALREADY past. Lots of information there, just look
around to see what is what...or indulge in meaningless
paranoia. Your choice. Both ways are free.

A Revision of the HUGE Part 2, Title 47 C.F.R. frequency
allocation table appeared last week in the Federal Register.
You might want to check it out and compare it with old
tables from 1995 to see the differences on what happened
to all those big UHF TV bands.

The DTV channel reassignment problem was complex yet the FCC
(through OET?) did a masterful job of figuring it all out.
You can even download the computer program that figured it
all out from the FCC website. You DO know how to program
a computer, don't you?

You get down to the museum yet? They have a working pre-NTSC B&W/color
TV set complete with color wheel...

That was the old "CBS System." Saw one in Chicago around
1948 at an NAB demo. Pretty at the time. But DOOMED from
the beginning on display size plus flicker to some viewers.
Anything larger than 15" diagonal needed a projection
system...the color wheel couldn't be made stable or reliable
at 32" diameter or larger and certainly not quiet enough.

Have you examined the Texas Instruments "micro mirror" chip
that is used for digital light projection. Thousands of
little deformable mirrors, one per pixel, that replacing the
projection CRT. Technology advances, gets on the market and
customers buy it. Nifty system, ey? But you aren't in the
loop. Too bad. Just play with your morse code radios and
be happy.

From: on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 03:43


Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message


What I think that blurb is really all about is the desire fo some to
turn off their NTSC TV transmitters. And I can't say I blame them.

Okay, so you DON'T understand the coding system of DTV that
evolved through MPEG and the Grand Alliance. Use all those
"IQ smarts" and that double degree to understand it. The
Grand Alliance test program was long and thorough (8 years?)
and has plenty of literature to eddicate you.

Most TV stations here in Philly are simulcasting DTV and NTSC. That's
expensive, both in tower rental, power and labor costs, and because the
NTSC stuff is all going to be worthless when they finally shut it down.

No, it won't be "worthless" sweetums. You've never worked in
any TV station and don't know what's involved. The NTSC video
transmitter is basically a linear AM type and can transmit
ANY digital signal fed to it. Yes, it will require a few add-
ons to meet whatever DTV specs there are, but it can be made
compatible. The basic ham HF transmitter is really a SSB (AM)
linear yet it can do on-off keying with just a few circuit
changes built-in. Same, same.

The NTSC aural transmitter is straight Class C for FM. It can
be altered and retuned to FM BC or any other FM transmit
frequency in VHF or UHF.

ALL of the RGB camera/film/slide/tape "studio" equipment is the
SAME for either system. That's what is being used NOW for all
those simulcasts. Video and audio control consoles are the
Same. Same = Same in math terms.

The major thing added between NTSC and DTV is the ENCODER for
DTV and the necessary "air monitors" to monitor the transmitters.

All those Tektronix (and others') "vector scopes" will be
obsolete. So are things like the Local Subcarrier Generator
and Synchronizer for NTSC. Not major cost items.

Philadelphia is NOT the center of United States television
production...just one of many major market areas in the USA.

The migration to DTV has taken a long time and it's going nowhere fast.

On the contrary. New DTV transmitters for locales requiring
channel reassignments have been sold and installed for some
time. They ARE working out fine.

The stores keep selling NTSC TVs, VCRs, etc., so the 'installed base'
isn't shrinking.

Those same stores (Circuit City, Best Buy, et al) are doing
just fine selling LCD/Plasma/Projection DISPLAY units that are
COMPATIBLE. You need to read the advertisements more often.
Check out the DVDs which are rapidly REPLACING mag tape.

DTV sets still cost a pretty penny, and if someone
doesn't watch that much TV it's not a high priority to replace an NTSC
set.

I just don't see any marketing person coming to you for
"customer insight" on what to sell! :-)

How many more years and dollars before they can shut off the old NTSC
transmitter? That's the big issue.

How many years before YOU decide to go solid-state in a ham
transmitter you "designed and built for yourself?" :-)

One solution is to distribute set-top boxes that convert DTV signals to
NTSC, so that you can watch the DTV transmissions on your NTSC set,
tape them on VHS, etc. But who is going to pay for it?

Real customers is who. [not you, of course...]

Get a clue. DVD has replaced magnetic tape for recordable TV.
Check any TV rental store. Read those ads you ignore. DVD
RECORDERS are available. My wife's computer has a DVD recorder
built-in as well as DVD playback through the computer. With a
thin flat-screen display the linearity is superb and so is the
"gamma" (linearity of contrast/brightness).

DTV Coupled with DVD recording and thin flat-screen displays
is a whole order of magnitude BETTER than Betamax ever was.
VHS mag tape recording got excellent a decade ago and the
prices have been dropping while the general economy has grown
more expensive. VHS is doomed, has been doomed by DVD, just
as much as CDs doomed the vinyl disc recording. CDs and DVDs
are BETTER than the old media.

Cable TV is now the leading TV input to households nationwide.
Cable TV is cutting over to digital transmission from the
head end to neighborhoods, the neighborhoods having ALREADY
added a second cable line in many service areas. Nearly all
Cable services offer rentable set-top-boxes to decode digital
into analog TV visual-aural or NTSC RF. My wife and I have
one of those with its own remote and extra services such as
"view-on-demand" (a bit like TiVo, but only in general).
We get MORE free channels plus more premium channels plus
some two dozen free audio-only "channels" just for listening.
Superior picture, no RFI as was once seen on analog service.
Yes, it costs more. Yes, there is more pleasure with it.

Wife and I bought a little palm-sized still/motion-picture
camera (with image stabilization) that records in a 512M
or 1Gig memory chip. Costs less than $200. The Panasonic
still camera that records on a SuperDisk (size of a 3 1/2"
floppy, holds over 450 images in hi-res) cost $600 in 2000.
Still works fine. Technology just keeps getting better.
Maybe you want to make that some paranoic charge to defeat
Eastman Kodak? Sorry, Eastman is doing digital cameras too.

By wrapping the issue in disaster-communications bunting, the whole
thing can be made to look as if it's in the national interest to shut
down NTSC broadcasting ASAP. The red herring is that the freed-up
spectrum will somehow enhance disaster comms.

Tsk, tsk. You should take your anti-paranoia pills REGULARLY.

The DTV channel reassignment FREED UP SPECTRUM for MANY radio
services. If you had followed the Mass Media Bureau and OET
at the FCC you would have seen that...and the several auctions
for users ALREADY past. Lots of information there, just look
around to see what is what...or indulge in meaningless
paranoia. Your choice. Both ways are free.

A Revision of the HUGE Part 2, Title 47 C.F.R. frequency
allocation table appeared last week in the Federal Register.
You might want to check it out and compare it with old
tables from 1995 to see the differences on what happened
to all those big UHF TV bands.

The DTV channel reassignment problem was complex yet the FCC
(through OET?) did a masterful job of figuring it all out.
You can even download the computer program that figured it
all out from the FCC website. You DO know how to program
a computer, don't you?

You get down to the museum yet? They have a working pre-NTSC B&W/color
TV set complete with color wheel...

That was the old "CBS System." Saw one in Chicago around
1948 at an NAB demo. Pretty at the time. But DOOMED from
the beginning on display size plus flicker to some viewers.
Anything larger than 15" diagonal needed a projection
system...the color wheel couldn't be made stable or reliable
at 32" diameter or larger and certainly not quiet enough.

Have you examined the Texas Instruments "micro mirror" chip
that is used for digital light projection. Thousands of
little deformable mirrors, one per pixel, that replacing the
projection CRT. Technology advances, gets on the market and
customers buy it. Nifty system, ey? But you aren't in the
loop. Too bad. Just play with your morse code radios and
be happy.

wrote:
Sure, they can nibble at the ham bands. But there's not much spectrum
to be had from them below 400 MHz. All of 6, 2 and 220 only adds up to
about two TV channels.

What you're really seeing is a push to end NTSC TV transmissions, and
go to DTV exclusively.

IMHO

Even out here in the sticks, I've been watching mostly digital or HDTV
for about two years. All of the Pittsburgh area stations are now
broacasting in at least DTV. One of the 'local' stations has one
channel of HDTV and a digital, full-time weather channel (the other
local is broadcasting DTV with only about 30w and doesn't have enough
signal to get here). My West Virginia PBS station is simulcasting three
DTV/HDTV "channels" and Ohio PBS from Cambridge is set up for five
DTV/HDTV "channels".

The difference between the analog and HDTV sigs is as great as seeing
your first color TV set after years of black and white viewing.

Congress needs to get moving on this thing. They've already moved the
cutover date at least once.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
Sure, they can nibble at the ham bands. But there's not much spectrum
to be had from them below 400 MHz. All of 6, 2 and 220 only adds up to
about two TV channels.

What you're really seeing is a push to end NTSC TV transmissions, and
go to DTV exclusively.

At least if we are all using DTV, lives will be saved, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

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."

News media last week reported that police forces in New Orleans City
and the three surrounding parishes all use different and incompatible
radio equipment.

Experts say that proper equipment and training and freeing up more
and better frequencies are essential pre-requisites for reaching the
holy grail of full communications interoperability for first
responders.

Kean said a bill in Congress to provide more spectrum was
stalled. "Nothing has been happening, and again, people on the
ground -- police, fire, medical personnel -- couldn't talk to each
other."

"That's outrageous and it's a scandal and I think it cost lives," he
concluded.

At issue are the recommendations of a 1995 congressional panel that,
as TV broadcasters transitioned to digital transmission -- which
takes up a much smaller fraction of the spectrum -- the frequencies
freed up would be allocated to first responders.

Now a bipartisan group of lawmakers is making a new push for the
legislation.

"We have not kept the promise we made 10 years ago," said Rep. Jane
Harman, D-Calif., calling the situation "a black eye" and "an
embarrassment" for lawmakers.

She and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., have written to Speaker of the
House Rep. Denny Hastert, R-Ill., to ask for a suspension of the
normal rules of debate so that a bill to enforce a deadline for
handing the relevant frequencies to first responders can be passed
this week.

In the Senate, a similar measure, sponsored by John McCain, R-Ariz.,
and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., is currently before the Commerce, Science
and Transportation Committee.

Spokesman Amy Call said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R.-Tenn,
was working with Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Ted Stevens, R-
Alaska to try and get that bill to the floor soon, too.

"The Leader saw first hand on the ground the challenges, and is
working with several members about further fixes in this area," Call
told United Press International at the weekend.

The parts of the spectrum identified by the 1995 Public Safety
Wireless Advisory Committee report are in the high 700-Mhz range --
which experts say is ideal for use by emergency services because
signals sent over these frequencies can penetrate walls and travel
long distances.

"This (part of the spectrum) is prime real estate," said Yucel Ors of
the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, a non-
profit that represents first responder and emergency management
communications specialists.

But, he added, "There are squatters on it," referring to the TV
broadcasters.

The law passed in response to the 1995 report set a Jan. 1, 2007,
target date for broadcasters to free up that part of the spectrum.

"But there's a huge get out for them," a congressional staffer who
has worked on the issue told United Press International. Broadcasters
are not required to relinquish their spectrum allocation until 85
percent of households in their market have the equipment needed to
receive digital signals.

The staffer said that this creates "a chicken and egg" problem --
without a firm date for the transition from analogue, there is no
incentive for viewers or broadcasters to upgrade to digital
equipment, and penetration remains well below the 85 percent baseline
in most major markets.

Broadcasters and their supporters say that imposing a deadline would
penalize those viewers who cannot afford new equipment, and that
households replace electronic goods like TV sets every few years,
arguing this should lead eventually to major markets crossing the 85
percent threshold.

But Michael Powell, then chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, testified last year to the Senate commerce committee that
the 85 percent penetration test could result in transition being
delayed for "decades or multiple decades."

"It is time to tell the broadcasters to get out of the way," said
Weldon, blaming "the lethargy of Congress -- both parties and both
chambers" for the failure to move on this issue before.

Ors said that broadcasters had also lobbied hard against a
deadline. "They have more resources than we do," he said, "First
responders are busy on the front lines, we don't have as much time as
they do to lobby Congress."

Experts are keen to stress that spectrum is just one of the pieces in
the interoperability jigsaw.

"Even if the ... deadline is imposed," said the congressional
staffer, "this is going to take some time."

The other pieces of the puzzle include equipment and training, but as
Ors points out, even in these areas, delays in freeing up the
spectrum become a problem.

"Until there's a firm date (for the transition) public safety
agencies can't make the investments in the equipment they need" to
make use of the new frequencies, he told UPI, adding that
manufacturers were also loath to spend money developing and marketing
equipment which could remain effectively unusable until some yet-to-
be-determined date in the future.

But the trickiest piece of all, according to the congressional
staffer, is what he called "the human element," and Ors refers to as
planning.

"Without clear planning (by neighboring jurisdictions), without
proper staffing and training, you can have all the spectrum and
equipment you need and it won't get you there," said Ors.

"There are cultural problems between fire departments and police
forces and (emergency medical services)," said the congressional
staffer.

And in huge disasters like Hurricane Katrina has caused, a lack of
interoperability can be the least of first responder worries.

Kenneth Moran, acting director of the homeland security office in the
Federal Communications Commission, told a House Energy and Commerce
Committee hearing Wednesday that interoperability had been only one
among many problems in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- which
blew down transmission towers and cut power in huge swathes of the
Gulf coast.

"We did see interoperability problems," he said, "But the biggest
problems we saw initially were things that were needed to get the
(cellular and broadcast) networks up and that tended to be security
issues, staging of personnel to get them in there and ... also trying
to get fuel (for generators) into the areas until the power would
come up."

But responders say that -- in a situation of prolonged crisis like
the one in Louisiana -- the time before and after the towers go down
and the power goes off is as important as any other.

"Good, strong communications help you prepare better and recover
faster," said Harlin McEwen, a retired FBI official and the chairman
of the communications and technology committee of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.


It is an interesting idea. It is good to see that despite the search for
villains, such as "people are dying because the television broadcasters
aren't using digital" sort of talk, that they *do* realize that there is
a human element going on.

But that isn't the way we think these days. Even though time and time
again, the "trained operator" comes out of the woodwork to help in these
emergencies, too many years have passed with our societies hatred of the
trained and competent person. Are our emergency management systems going
to put up with the expense of the trained operator?

More likely what we'll do, will be to make up some sort of
infrastructure dependent system that relies on machinery and electronics
to "allow" an untrained person to "access everything". And of course,
the next time the wheels fall off, the same situation that is going on
now will happen.

Just some thoughts....

- Mike KB3EIA -