700 MHz Spectrum may be fastracted

[n4voxgill]

From RCR News:

Breaking News
McCain returns to 2007 date for DTV transition
By Heather Forsgren Weaver
Sep 14, 2005
WASHINGTON-In a change to his previously proposed bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants to move up by two years the date that broadcasters must give back the extra spectrum they were given for the transition to digital TV to the original date of Jan. 1, 2007.
"After watching citizens suffer during recovery efforts in New Orleans, I believe this date should be moved up to Jan. 1, 2007, as originally contemplated by Congress," said McCain., former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, noting that the federal government, three surrounding parishes and the city of New Orleans all used different public-safety radio systems.

In June, McCain introduced what he described as compromise legislation that would have given broadcasters an extra two years to complete the DTV transition. In July, the National Association of Broadcasters, which consistently has tried to delay the spectrum transfer, said it was willing to support-or at least accept-a 2009 hard date.

Congress had been expected to consider a hard date for the DTV transition as part of the 2006 budget reconciliation process, but the budget appears to have been put on hold in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Sensing another slip, the Association of Public-safety Communications Officials International stepped up its lobbying effort by sending a letter to all members of Congress urging that Congress finish the DTV hard date legislation this year.

 

[kb5udf]

What diff will that maketo NOLA

Most public safety in NOLA is all 800, including suburbs. What difference will adding more frequencies downward make on incompatible systems, ie, MA/COM-Edacs vs Moto. Type II and P-25?

 

[n4voxgill]

because 700 MHz will become the big interoperability band. In fact it will become the primary band eventually. There is as much spectrum allocated for public safety as all of the VHF, UHF and 800 combined. 100 channels are set aside for interoperabililty.

 

[N_Jay]

because 700 MHz will become the big interoperability band. In fact it will become the primary band eventually. There is as much spectrum allocated for public safety as all of the VHF, UHF and 800 combined. 100 channels are set aside for interoperabililty.

And how fast (in your prediction)?

Personally I put it between 30 years and never.

 

[kb5udf]

Nola

I should have clarified, my above remarks were referring to the New Orleans area, where to my understanding, was just about all 800 trunked, including state agencies. Except some used different types of systems.

 

[1268]

I Agree with Njay it will take A LONG time to get that done! I also think we all need to look at the big picture, between rebuilding the gulf area and the war, the federal goverment is in a serious cash crunch. Alot of radio system upgrades will be put off due to lack of funds.

 

[kg4icg]

Thing is the 700 mhz system will do the exact same thing the 800 mhz system did. It will fail because it relies on towers and commercial power /generators to run. Katrina's flooding knocked out the TRS radio systems down there,in which things ended in a quagmire. So how is a 700 mhz system going to work where a 800 mhz system couldn't work because of down antyennas and power outages.

R Collins

 

[Al42]

So how is a 700 mhz system going to work where a 800 mhz system couldn't work because of down antyennas and power outages.

It will show the voters that their elected representatives are doing something about the problem.

Oh, you meant other than smoke and mirrors?

 

[n4voxgill]

Florida was hit with 4 hurricanes last year and I don't know a single 800 trunked system that failed. I know that two of them hit Orlando pretty good, and only once did they even lose a site. The generator failed and it was back up very quickly.

I remember when 800 first came in. It was not used very much and then it dawned on the major users that it was the only place they can get frequeancies, so by the mid 80s many large metro systems were planning on the 800.

Today there are many major 800 systems that can't add anymore frequencies and are waiting on 700. Also a major difference with 700 is that federal agencies can license in it. for the first time you can end up with federal, state, county and city combined systems.

I know one city in florida that could not get any additional 800 frequencies and bought a business band 800 MHz frequency to put in their system. I know a Florida county that has 300 portable radios sitting in disaster kits that can be issued to incoming personnel be they firefighters responding to a forrest fire, or when the National Guard was stationed at the airport they were issued radios. There is one kit with 25 radios for the red cross if they open shelters. Big money continues to be spent and big money will come out with 700 mhz.

But I guess we will see. Many professional system managers from major areas have been pushing for 700 for 10 years.

 

[ajpritch]

My understanding of the whole 700mhz thing is to allow Public Saftey agencies to get away from the Nextel issues interfering with the 800mhz spectrum. The only other thing is that 700 mhz will go farther than 800 but the systems will still all be the same with the same issues mentioned above.

 

[N_Jay]

My understanding of the whole 700mhz thing is to allow Public Saftey agencies to get away from the Nextel issues interfering with the 800mhz spectrum. The only other thing is that 700 mhz will go farther than 800 but the systems will still all be the same with the same issues mentioned above.

You understand wrong. :lol:

The two issues are unrelated.

And I would not expect any range increase from 800 down to 700. There simply is not much of a frequency move.

 

[DPD1]

Yeah, I don't get it either... What's lacking is organization and basic preparedness. That could be accomplished now if they really wanted to. Of course, that wouldn't include big payments to vendors for new equipment though.

I guess it depends on what people consider the definition of 'interoperability' is. If you're talking about every single individual having the ability to talk every other individual, in all various organizations... Then yes, you would have to have a system that is shared among all groups. But why would you need that much interoperability, and why would you even want every single individual to be able to talk to each other? If you had that, you would have individuals all communicating with each other in the field, with no oversight. It would be better to have control centers, and then a limited amount of designated liaison people that have the ability to relay information.

If you're talking major disaster... FEMA could have a mobile comm center that could be deployed by military cargo plane in a few hours. It would have it's own generators, towers, and personnel. They could even bring their own radio equipment to hand out and assign various liaison people with any group involved in the efforts. In the comm center they could have people that work desks assigned to each major player... Coast Guard, Army, local PD, whatever. Each desk would have frequency agile equipment that talks anywhere, and they could maintain a database through the FCC's info, giving them all freqs for any group in the nation. So then, you've got controlled comms through the center... The bosses know what's going on, can make judgment calls, AND you've got a way to pass info between groups.

I think having full 100% interoperability between all field operators would actually cause MORE chaos, not less. And as far as power issues... That's going to happen no matter what band you use, unless you have a federal system that is maintained across the whole nation by one entity, including generators.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Custom Scanner, MURS, & Ham Antennas-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

 

[n4voxgill]

I suggest as a starting point that you read the report of the PSWAC Committee that was established by the FCC and NTIA. One of the major subcommittees was Interoperability. You can find this at:

pswac.ntia.doc.gov/pubsafe/publications/PSWAC_AL.PDF

 

[N_Jay]

I suggest as a starting point that you read the report of the PSWAC Committee that was established by the FCC and NTIA. One of the major subcommittees was Interoperability. You can find this at:

pswac.ntia.doc.gov/pubsafe/publications/PSWAC_AL.PDF

Don't do that!


Education and accurate information is a bad thing. :twisted:

 

[Al42]

It would be better to have control centers, and then a limited amount of designated liaison people that have the ability to relay information.

Just like 9-11. A cop could call central to call FDNY to call the fireman on the radio to tell him to watch out for that falling beam.

If you're talking major disaster.

I'd call that a major disaster. The message would get to the fireman about the time he (and the beam) hit the ground.

Each desk would have frequency agile equipment that talks anywhere

As soon as we invent such a thing. I can just see MA/Com giving its secrets to Motorola, so that the next FEMA Motorola portable could talk in a city using MA/Com trunk systems. Does "never" sound too soon?

and they could maintain a database through the FCC's info, giving them all freqs for any group in the nation. So then, you've got controlled comms through the center... The bosses know what's going on, can make judgment calls, AND you've got a way to pass info between groups.

Not all communications has to go through dispatchers. Not all of it does now. No one wants all of it to in the future.

Total interop, between any two arbitrary agencies in the country, is a myth. FEMA handing out thousands of radios in a disaster is a myth. Having a radio that operates all Motorola systems, all EDACS systems (and Provoice), all LTR systems and MA/Com isn't even a myth.

A good comms manager at the scene of every major disaster would help, but having someone from outside take charge of your communications isn't sexy, so it'll never happen. The closest we came, in LA, was the National Guard, and even they had commo problems, which anyone listening to the feeds would have heard.

 

[ham612]

Other than to free up more spectrum, I don’t see how speeding up the move to the 700MHz band is going to help.

Propagation will be similar to what you get in the 800MHz band, so in areas of hilly terrain you will need a large infrastructure to support it (more repeater sites, and all the associated hardware). More complexity.

Couple this with the move toward digitally modulated systems which appear to have very little standardization (I thought P-25 was supposed to take care of that) and it seems to be the recipe for another comm’s disaster.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of digital systems and what can be done with them as opposed to analog. Aside from the propagation issues mentioned above, 700 Mhz will be helpful in offering bandwidth that will allow for some advanced applications. But until something universal is settled upon, I vote for VHF, FM ,and simplex, for true interoperability. Keep it simple.
MS

 

[cellblock776]

While browsing the forums at Firehouse.com I found this at-
http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=74017

Hey, just got a request this week from the parish OEP wanting a list of my members and apparatus....basically, wanted to know how many radios we would need to outfit every member and truck with a 700 mHz radio. So I'm like, OK, what's the deal? Seems there has been some talk of converting a lot of public safety agencies to 700mHz, and now in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and all the associated communication problems that arose, they're supposedly fast-tracking this project.

I was led to understand that we could potentially be getting all our radios replaced with 700 mHz. I assume there would also be some kind of interoperability provisions with the new system.

Now, we just laid out a bunch of $$$ a couple of years ago for some new radios (didn't replace all, just added to what we already have and replaced some of the really trashed ones). The lady at the OEP wasn't sure if these "new" radios were meant to replace what we have or as a supplement, to ensure that all agencies can talk together in another big incident.

If it's a replacement for our current radios, we'll have to change our operation somewhat, because you can't get voice pagers in 700mHz (at least not from Motorola)....which means dispatch on one system and talk on a totally different one (I know some of you out there are probably already doing this, if you're on 800 mHz or whatever....)

My question is, any of you communications types out there hear of this? What's the deal? Is this really in the works, because it's the first I've heard of it.
__________________
Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
Paincourtville, LA
[/UNQUOTE]

 

[N_Jay]

. . . . . . the move toward digitally modulated systems which appear to have very little standardization (I thought P-25 was supposed to take care of that) and it seems to be the recipe for another comm’s disaster. . . . . .
MS

Enlighten us.

 

[N_Jay]

While browsing the forums at Firehouse.com I found this at-
http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=74017

Hey, just got a request this week from the parish OEP wanting a list of my members and apparatus....basically, wanted to know how many radios we would need to outfit every member and truck with a 700 mHz radio. So I'm like, OK, what's the deal? . . . .
My question is, any of you communications types out there hear of this? What's the deal? Is this really in the works, because it's the first I've heard of it. . . .

They could be getting ready to apply for a grant, or getting ready for some previously received funding to be redirected.

This would be a local or state issue and not universal.

 

[poltergeisty]

I think Motorola and the other companies should invest in satellites where communications could be in spread spectrum format. A fail soft would be direct 700 MHz digital.

I wonder why a cell phone technology isn't used mainly for public safety? Instead of P25 why not CDMA? This would be better for interoperability issues, for CDMA has much band width.Boo!-Poltergeisty :-0