• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

D Block JOBS Act: Careful What You Wish For

Status
Not open for further replies.

GrumpyGuard

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
606
Location
Oregon
This is what happens when you have a group of staffers that know nothing about radio communications setting policy or law. This will cost untold millions of dollars. I wonder if the radio communications industry does not have a hand in this, what better way to ensure job/financial security.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,390
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
Broadband voice pretty much means radio emulation through LTE devices. The first generation is being tested in production, where it can be tweaked to perfection in a beta environment where customers actually pay to have it (wow) and will likely pay for each revision (double wow). Harris just announced a product that will emulate P25 (presumably will create a P25 data stream that can port across from cellular to a native P25 system without going to baseband audio and signaling http://forums.radioreference.com/community-announcements-news/223905-harris-corp-s-beon-p25-radio-app.html. Then, another defense contractor has announced a similar product http://forums.radioreference.com/community-announcements-news/227320-canadian-research-could-lead-running-jtrs-compatible-radio-waveforms-smartphone.html. These are apps, so they don't care if they're going over LTE, CDMA, GSM, etc., as long as it's going through some infrastructure into the cloud. The horses are on the track!

And GrumpyGuard, industry has a strategic plan to cover basically ANY eventuality. There's a multidimensional chess program running in their WOPR computers. Globally, divergent standards mean market-specific devices (P25 here, TETRA there, DMR introduced as an incompatible but more cost effective alternative, make the next version of P25 look like DMR); nationally, lobby for favorable regulatory environments and fund various interests; locally, get involved in bidding strategies and introduce products that have sole-source "enhancements" that thwart open, competitive procurement and marry the client to the manufacturer's product - even with an open "standard." The only interest most Congressional staffers have in telecommunications policy is how to use it to generate revenue. Speak about anything else and they gloss over, smile, and offer you coffee. Lobbyists and the pundits they pay off the street corner to corroborate their points of view only focus on one thing - getting the D-Block and everything else can be scorched earth, it's okay because "the only thing we'll need is D-Block" and "they'll get those problems [coverage/capacity in non-metro areas, recurring cost, and no off-network simplex mode] fixed once it rolls out."

The third dynamic are the proponents. Seems to me like most of the ones pushing for this have never worn a uniform, and, of the ones who have, have had a rubber gun and sat behind a desk for years. One has to question whether these folks are public safety's Nostradamus, or have bought stock and are trying to create their future wealth.

Finally, it's an infrastructure-based solution. We resist hardening because of expense. Is anyone really going to build something for double or triple the cost? We don't even have fiber connectivity in most parts of the country, let alone points of presence to plug this stuff into. It will only be as "hard" as its weakest link (or coverage).

LTE has its value. It's worth pushing for as a data service. But when some highly vocal people who might need to be selling Fuller Brush instead of what they're doing right now start taking tools out of the toolbox, handing us a hammer and telling us it's the only tool we'll ever need, remember it's still just a hammer (maybe with a beer bottle opener hot glued to it to justify the extra $3,000). It's not Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver. I think taking away everything else (mandated spectrum givebacks), or forklifting things that are in and working (not-too-old 700 MHz systems) is insane.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,390
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
Here's what's going into this sausage:

The entire text of H.R. 3630 may be found here: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/13734033/1933843889/name/BILLS-112hr3630ih.pdf It's a 369 page PDF, so it may take a bit to load, but once it does, you can search for public safety, broadband, or other terms. There are quite a few spectrum management references in it. I have to love this bit of Beltway hyperbole: "TITLE IV - JUMPSTARTING OPPORTUNITY WITH BROADBAND SPECTRUM ACT OF 2011." And, it's intermingled with extending unemployment benefits, child tax credits, energy and other unrelated stuff. Complicated times ahead for us all.
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,209
Location
Rensselaer, NY
The House passed it, but the Senate is unlikely to go along with it. Obama would veto in any event because he doesn't want the oil pipeline built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top