Request for Comments on NJ Trunked on 500 Mhz

[SCPD]

Released: 12/07/2009. Public safety and homeland security bureau
seeks comment on request for waiver filed by the county of Monmouth, New
Jersey to operate a trunked public safety communications system using
frequencies in the television channel 19 band (500-506 MHZ). (DA No.
09-2549). Comments Due: 12/28/2009. Reply Comments Due: 01/07/2010.
PSHSB . Contact: David Siehl at (202) 418-1313, TTY: (202) 418-7233,
Email: David.Siehl@fcc.gov
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2549A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2549A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2549A1.txt

 

[KC2GVX]

Can we reply with comments requesting they not encrypt the whole system?

 

[W2SJW]

Can we reply with comments requesting they not encrypt the whole system?

+1 x1000!!! :lol:

 

[902]

Can we reply with comments requesting they not encrypt the whole system?

The decision to encrypt a radio system is NOT under the FCC's purview. They have no authority to mandate anyone to encrypt or not to encrypt. But one thing's for sure: as a public safety communications manager, if I read that someone commented that I shouldn't encrypt a radio system I was attempting to build, it's probably the first thing I would do. If one of my law enforcement white shirt types read it, he'd probably order the existing systems go encrypted. Comments like that are like holding lightning rods outside in a thunderstorm. They invite a bolt of lightning to hit the hobby.

 

[KC2GVX]

902: I agree with your comment, and made my original post as a joke. I know the FCC couldn't care about encryption at all. Anyway, living on the Jersey Shore, you can almost bet on this system being encrypted. That is what everyone does here anyway. At least I can still listen to the mall security and the senior citizen transport buses.

 

[902]

Sorry, I never can tell. A lot of people would be serious about that. :lol:

You can listen to the FDs and EMS, too, in many cases. I'm not sure why there is a perception of needing state security for routine things, but do think things like social security numbers and other things should be sent encrypted. I set my mother up with a scanner many years ago. She lives down the shore in a community which just went digital a few years back and I have not been able to get her a new P25 scanner yet. I can't say how many times she's dropped a dime because she saw someone they were looking for, though. Having ears in the street = eyes in the street, too. Eh, they'll figure it out someday.

902: I agree with your comment, and made my original post as a joke. I know the FCC couldn't care about encryption at all. Anyway, living on the Jersey Shore, you can almost bet on this system being encrypted. That is what everyone does here anyway. At least I can still listen to the mall security and the senior citizen transport buses.

 

[scannersnstuff]

my comment's are not going to make or break whether monmouth county decides to encrypt or not.
i just don't see the need to encrypt fire and/or ems comm's. sensitive law enforcement info. should be encrypted.a lot of people rely on their scanner as an adjunct to safety from the weather. we like to know what's going on,so that we can make informed decision's about storm safety. this is especially important to place's like eastern monmouth,which is very coastal. nor'easters and hurricanes have impacted the area.not to mention a few blizzard's. interoperability is going to be comprimised in the town's that elect not to go to the county trunked system. many vollie firemen/ems provider's depend on their own scanner's to keep them informed.most town's cannot afford to supply all their member's with their own assigned portables. a few town's have a hard time getting all of their member's pager's.

 

[kb2vxa]

Let me clue you in on something, again. Decades ago the FCC mandated that all transmissions "of a sensitive nature" must be encrypted. A bit of common sense will tell you it's up to the agency to decide what is sensitive and what is not.

"my comment's are not going to make or break whether monmouth county decides to encrypt or not."
Thank goodness someone sees the light, the FCC comment period and procedure has nothing whatsoever to do with encryption, that mandate having long been established. It rather is all about technical matters such as interference potential and feasibility, that is "is this thing really needed, what are it's potentials and give us the details to help us decide". This is an FCC matter entirely, whether or not to encrypt is Monmouth's decision, entirely. Somehow you guys got mixed up with which agency is the recipient of public comment.

 

[fineshot1]

I am a bit surprised with all of the DTV interference issues at TV Chan 19 & 20 that they
did not apply for some of the new 700 Mhz freqs and bypass all those problems. By the
time they have the system built all of those 700 Mhz freqs will be available.

 

[DJ88]

If I'm not mistaken there was talk waaaaay back when information about a new system for Monmouth County first surfaced that it was going to be 700 MHz. Kevin O'Brien may be able to elaborate on this.

 

[scannersnstuff]

If I'm not mistaken there was talk waaaaay back when information about a new system for Monmouth County first surfaced that it was going to be 700 MHz. Kevin O'Brien may be able to elaborate on this.

yup, i remember it that way too. i also remember thinking that i did not have a scanner at that time to cover 700 megs.

 

[radioman2001]

Government loves to keep secrets, especially from the public. While I don't know if it would help, you can influence your locals by showing up at meetings, and make noise. Put the locals on record. The agency works for you, not the other way round. If not, you can run for office yourself, under an open government platform, and make it a policy that all everyday traffic be public accessable. You can also under the Freedom of Information Act require the agency to make all radio transmissions available, by some other means, transcript is one of them. When they see what it's going to cost them in time, personnell, and other expenses, that could be used elsewhere, to meet that law than the encryption will gain, they might change their minds. I have said this many times, and have had knock down drag out arguments with officials before. Complacency is more likely to cause an agency to go encrypted than an engaged public.

 

[902]

Great points, and it bears repeating, an engaged public makes for receptive public servants. Corruption grows like bacteria when politicians and their appointees are not or cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Philosophy aside, be careful with FOIA inquiries. Some may claim SBU exemptions, where, law enforcement sensitive materials may be redacted or exempt from public availability. The other thing I've seen is that some local governments may have ordinances allowing agencies to charge for retrieving documents. It's usually a pain to go into the logging recorder to get calls for lawyers, etc. You also lose immediacy. Why listen to routine scanner traffic that's 9 months delayed? It loses its appeal like that, unless you're analyzing a particular event.

In the future, monitoring will be more of a challenge. Things will migrate to an IP platform and radio will be nothing more than an application on a handheld computer. Some cellular runs like this today, and all will as things migrate to 4G. This would be a true challenge to openness. Some agencies would offset this by streaming audio on routine dispatch talkgroups.

Government loves to keep secrets, especially from the public. While I don't know if it would help, you can influence your locals by showing up at meetings, and make noise. Put the locals on record. The agency works for you, not the other way round. If not, you can run for office yourself, under an open government platform, and make it a policy that all everyday traffic be public accessable. You can also under the Freedom of Information Act require the agency to make all radio transmissions available, by some other means, transcript is one of them. When they see what it's going to cost them in time, personnell, and other expenses, that could be used elsewhere, to meet that law than the encryption will gain, they might change their minds. I have said this many times, and have had knock down drag out arguments with officials before. Complacency is more likely to cause an agency to go encrypted than an engaged public.

 

[radioman2001]

True but that's where you have to put the politicians on the hot seat. On line streaming is an idea, as you said, and I would love to see that. FOIA requests have to filled in a reasonable time,what that time frame is, I don't know , but I would bet that the press would not permit 9 months for information. An interesting note on IP based wideband systems, NYPD is planning to go that very route. No date has been set, but because of their plans,(bids have already been let out) NYPD has stated it will NOT go narrowband by 2013. The comment was, we have been attacked twice by terrorists, I would doubt the FCC would do anything to NYC radio systems if we fail to go narrowband, especially since we have to go wideband in the future. Their argument, which bears economic sense, since they have a 20 year life cycle on their radio systems.

 

[902]

I knew that was the course they were following, but the Commission released their PN a little while ago relating to narrowbanding. A number of interests have been poking the FCC to show some leadership by issuing this, and it was promised for December. I love their timing, Friday, close of business.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2589A1.pdf