Bravo
So write to your representative and get one started there. 48 states to go.
While I think the bill is well written, there are a couple of points here:
The COST of "decryption" in an agency that went full time encryption. An agency can make a solid argument that their system was configured a certain way, say at staging, and any change to a system with hundreds/thousands of subscribers and console dispatch sites incurs a monetary impact. Who's going to pay for this?
Which brings me to the second point: FirstNET/LTE. 5-10 years from now after a bill like this works it's way through the process and let us assume it actually becomes law, nothing in it addresses First NET. LTE by nature is fully encrypted end to end, and it is actually illegal to attempt to monitor any cellular/PCS/AWS per the ECPA (nevermind the technical challenges). So once public safety migrates to LTE (which it will and is only a matter of time and money), than a bill like this is no longer relevant.
As we move away from LMR and legacy technology, if one wants to draft a bill requiring public access, they should include text to address the next generation of government communications such as LTE. The argument of open government should be agnostic to technology, as it is forever changing and evolving.
THREE WORDS FOR THAT! Hooray, yes & please. Good job Colorado!! Makes me want to move there even more than before if it actually happens. It will bring back the scanner listening / public safety scanner monitoring hobby back for some living in Colorado & hopefully in the future, for all or most states including New Mexico where I live. Encryption is being used in New Mexico because when my digital scanner lands on a encrypted frequency or frequencies, it will always be silent & show in the top left corner (ENC).
My digital public safety scanner that I paid good money for has become increasingly quiet & pretty much worthless especially in the 165-174 Mhz Federal range due to encrypted communications used by Federal agencies such as forestry which is mainly what I always monitored & had intentions of always listening to for my own concern & safety due to extreme fire danger in my local forest that is just 100 feet from my home.
The only problem with the cost argument is that most newer radios aren’t that difficult to unencrypt granted the cost involved to bring the radios back for reprogramming,
FirstNet is not supposed to be a replacement for two-way voice communication over radios, according to what I've read.
Having to touch every radio, console, AIS and related hardware is expensive, and I speak from the position of someone who has done it. No it's not technically challenging, but it is logistically challenging, especially if the system does not have POP-25 or Radio Management (Motorola).
That costs money and the logistics alone are a tremendous burden.
OTAP.. Its pretty standard for systems now.
But LTE will indeed replace LMR as time goes on. It just makes sense. I'm about to have a presentation from our AT&T rep regarding FirstNET, integration and their plans for First NET implementation in my state. It will be interesting to see how they describe the rollout.
LMR has a limited life span in the big picture. Take a look at what is happening in Europe, TETRA is being phased out in favor of LTE. The same thing will happen here eventually. It is only a matter of time.
To accommodate serving the public, agencies should consider putting delayed streams of dispatch traffic online. There is a cost of doing this, but as technology is evolving, it should come down. This is where a third party like Broadcastify could bid for the project, and do it "turnkey".
As we move away from LMR and legacy technology, if one wants to draft a bill requiring public access, they should include text to address the next generation of government communications such as LTE. The argument of open government should be agnostic to technology, as it is forever changing and evolving.
No one here have political experience or friends/family in politics huh.......
Legislation designed to stop law enforcement agencies and other governments in Colorado from encrypting all of their dispatch radio communications died Thursday in a committee of the state legislature.
Rep. Kevin Van Winkle, a Highlands Ranch Republican, introduced House Bill 18-1061 because of what he called a “troubling trend” among police and sheriff’s departments to block the public from monitoring their radio traffic using scanners, receivers and smartphone apps.