|
|
| FEMA & Open Communication Systems ~ by Dr. Frank Brickle |
 |
|
Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:21 AM EDT
|
Recently PJ published an article about how closed standards are hobbling FEMA in its rescue and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. I want to amplify that story by telling you a true tale about the conflict between open and closed communications systems as they effect FEMA operations, and how their people on the ground, the real responders, are affected by closed systems, and their awareness of the need for open alternatives.
True story:
Last May I was at the Dayton Hamvention -- that's the biggest annual
gathering for amateur radio operators in North America -- and one
afternoon a guy came up to me and said, "I'm from the US Government, and
I'm here to help you!"
He was already shaking my hand, so it was pretty awkward when I
immediately tried to back away from him. (Remember, this *is* a true
story.)
He laughed, and said, "No, really, I'm from FEMA..." and started
talking.
The reason I was in Dayton was, first, I'm a ham (AB2KT), and second, I
was there along with my friend Bob McGwier (N4HY), both of us as
volunteer authors of a body of program code that implements a Software
Defined Radio (SDR), to be found at http://dttsp.sourceforge.net. That
code is the software heart of a commercial radio which was being featured at the Hamvention.
There are other software radios -- what that means, I'll get to in a
second -- but the SDR-1000 is the first radio of its kind in a number of
ways, not the least of which is that *all* the software is GPL and
freely downloadable, much of which was written by unpaid volunteers like
us. It also happens to be a very fine two-way radio indeed, one of the
best currently available.
Now, what is Software Defined Radio? The concept is truly simple and
thus easily missed. When we say Radio, we're really talking about any
sort of wireless communications, one-way or two-way. The Software
Defined part simply means that most of the radio functions are carried
out not by circuits and components like resistors and transistors, but
instead by program code. This is not such a radical idea. Anybody who's
lived through the transition from vinyl records to compact discs has
first-hand experience with the same kind of replacement of hardware by
software. What it means to you is also simple. It's like substituting a
computer for a typewriter. You gain a vast range of new capability
because what it does, it does through program code, not physical
parts. A Software Defined Radio can easily be many different kinds of
radio, often several different types at once.
Our project is different from most other SDRs in that the programs are
meant to run on a desktop computer. Your computer, plus some additional
hardware in front of it. Most other SDRs embed their program code in
dedicated devices, usually DSP chips, and closed up operating
environments. This defeats much of the advantage of SDRs. (It also
suppresses many of the fears that conventional manufacturers harbor
about future SDRs.) Our project, however, runs on conventional OSes --
Linux, Windows, soon the BSDs and OSX -- so it's open to the four winds
of modification and extension.
Now, back to Dayton. What the FEMA guy was telling me was this.
They, along with the three other major operational agencies under the
Department of Homeland Security, rely on shortwave radios for two-way
communications in the field. In other words, they use HF -- HF standing
for "High Frequency," as opposed to, say, VHF, for "Very High Frequency"
-- for many of their tactical communications needs. That's pretty
common, since HF, done right, performs better than other bands in rough
or mountainous terrain. The military and many relief organizations
worldwide use it extensively.
The agencies' tactical communications rely on voice and digital data
both: they regularly pass critical time-sensitive email and documents
over these channels. It's important to realize that the *outer*
protocols for these systems are all MIL/FED standards, adhered to
worldwide for the most part. But everything else is proprietary.
All of the DHS operational agencies were worried. Owing to their
different legacies and procurement processes, they all had their own
distinct communications systems. The systems had all been developed and
manufactured by large government contractors, and they were all closed
in the tightest possible senses, both hardware and software. The systems
were incompatible with one another. The software they used for handling
email and documents was buggy and inadequate, and it ran on obsolete
versions of Windows. It was virtually impossible to coordinate the user
ends of the machines on a LAN. The vendors were completely unresponsive.
What's more, there were technological advances they'd desperately like
to exploit, but couldn't, because of vendor lock-in. For example, using
a technique called diversity reception, it would be possible to achieve
much higher data rates over their HF channels under adverse
conditions. But it was questionable whether their various systems could
be rigged to use the small selection of components available to them for
that purpose.
In short, the operational agencies under DHS understood their needs were
not being met by their existing systems, and there was no way to remedy
the situation since their systems were closed. There was also no
expectation of a fix from the vendors. They realized that what they
needed was open systems, now and in the future.
The only system on the horizon that might possibly fill the bill was
ours. Because most of the radio is in software, it could be customized
and made interoperable across agencies. Because most of the software
runs not on dedicated hardware like DSP chips, but on general-purpose
desktop computers running Linux, it would be easier to customize and to
integrate into more expansive networking facilities off the shelf. And
all of the software is GPL.
So, was there something that could be done? Not so much to help us, but
to help them?
Let me stress that there is a fair amount of excellent SDR software
around. Probably the most conspicuous is the gnuradio project, which is also
GPL, as the name would imply. Gnuradio is a first-rate piece of work, and its
leaders, Eric Blossom and Matt Ettus, are worthy of the highest respect both
for the quality of their work and their tireless devotion to promoting the
cause of software radio. However, gnuradio is not really designed to be
embodied as-is in a production system. Their goals and ours were considerably
different. From the start, we intended to have a compact, portable SDR core
that could comfortably be embedded in any number of different hardware
environments.
In the event, we agreed to pursue the matter further, and have been
doing so. Unfortunately events have a way of overtaking good
intentions. I do not know first-hand whether the problems we talked
about had a certifiably negative impact on rescue and relief efforts in
the Gulf Coast. I do know that the policy of seeking open systems, from
hardware down through the most elemental software, has the potential for
tremendous improvements in efficiency, when situations like New Orleans
arise again.
The general issue of Software Defined Radio, its connection to open
systems and protocols, and its potential threat to conventional
telecommunications providers and manufacturers, is a large topic, one
which deserves more attention from the general community concerned with
FOSS development. But the larger picture is a story for another
time. For now, it's enough to note that the people on the ground, the
ones actually responsible for anticipating and preparing for
emergencies, want their systems open, merely to be able to do their
jobs.
Frank Brickle describes himself as a longtime Groklaw camp follower. He's a composer with a day job. The day job involves work in the strange area where computers, radios, and cryptology intersect; for a sample of this, a product of close collaboration with mathematician Robert McGwier, see the DttSP project.
DttSP is an open source project started by Dr. Frank Brickle and Dr. Robert McGwier of the DTTS Microwave Society to provide code to be used in various DSP projects with an emphasis on Software Defined and Cognitive Radio. You can hear some recent musical work -- an opera for puppets, "The Creation of the World" based on the Townley Mystery Plays -- at the Weill Recital Hall at Carnegie Hall in New York City on December 22.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
Where PJ can find them all in one place
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
| OT OT OT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
| What's new that would be of interest to Groklaw'r? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - Survived Ophelia - Authored by: DL on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Off topic items- Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT
- BPL - A Pig in a Poke - Authored by: iceworm on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- Linux trademark bid rejected - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- Linux trademark bid rejected - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- Darn - Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 01:01 AM EDT
- Darn - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 06:37 AM EDT
- Darn - Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- .net to linux migration - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 09:36 PM EDT
- "Should election software be open source?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- Maybe some of these organizations need more involvement with Amateur Radio operators - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 11:06 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bap on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
| I find it a bit scary that amateurs are better equipped and have a better
understanding of something as critical as radio communications than
professionals who rely on it do.
This reminds me of a conversation my dad
had a long time ago. He is also a ham, although he hasn't been active for 10+
years, but back in the mid-to-late 80's he was heavily involved with the local
ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) group in Stamford, CT. The state ran a big
mock disaster drill one year and used ham volunteers as a backup form of
communication. At one point my dad was in an elevator with somebody high up the
chain in the fire department. The firefighter stated that while in the elevator
he could hardly reach anybody outside the building with his radio. My dad, on
the other hand, with his 2-meter handheld (using a repeater in the middle of the
city) could easily reach other hams over 10 miles away. How can rescue, law
enforcement, etc. have such sub-par equipment when hobbyists can fair so much
better?
The systems had all been developed and manufactured by large
government contractors, and they were all closed in the tightest possible
senses, both hardware and software.
This frustrates me more than it
surprises me, especially given all the orginazational changes to the government
since 9/11. I would have hoped that the Department of Homeland Security would
have moved to adopt standards for all the organizations (like FEMA) that are
part of DHS. At least some branches of the government recognized it long ago
and started dealing with it to some extent before 9/11. I'm a volunteer in the
US Coast Guard Auxiliary and for a while in the 90's was on its national staff
doing research for internet-based distance education. Back when I first joined,
the entire USCG used a proprietary computer system called Standard Workstation
2. Every USCG station had these workstations so no matter what station you went
to everything was 100% identical. A contractor had apparently convinced them
early on that this proprietary system was the best way to go, but as time went
on it just meant they were locked into a non-standard enviornment. A few years
back they finally finsihed a complete upgrade to Standard Workstation 3, which
is based entirely on Windows NT instead of a completely proprietary system.
(Don't blast them on using NT as a standard - you'd have to know what SW2 was
like to understand how big an improvement this was) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
| Having used various Gov't supplied radios, I can attest to some of the problems
each type has. Some days you could talk to people in Kentucky while you couldn't
talk to someone 5 miles away. Some days you could not control a remote site due
to interference on the freq from powerlines. And because I live in Florida, the
sat radio/phone didn't work due to the cloud cover. Only thing that seemed to
always work were the microwave links and that was only because they had 2 routes
out of each site. Even the WHCA has had the same troubles in the past and had
to bounce signals by way of Panama to talk to someone in California from the
Northeast. And it only gets worse when you are in a city that has tall
buildings.
Waterman not logged in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
The simplest form of compatibility is voice. Yet, even for standard SSB HF
comms, there has been a vacuum of cooperation between agencies.
Every
agency goes in and sets up their own comm nets and nobody talks to anyone else.
Why? Well, first off, every agency has its own needs, logistical and otherwise,
and has little time to deal with others. Second, What channels to use, and for
what purposes? Are there MOUs to permit agencies to use each other's
frequencies? How about NTIA compliance (did you realize that most mil HF
radios, at 1 PPM, are not fully NTIA complaint for use on FEMA and other agency
channels?)?
I could go on and on, but the point is that the same issues
of top level management that affect the overall operation affect radio ops.
Then, going into each organization, let me tell you the bureaucracy does not
stop, but gets more intense. For example, one organization that I am a member
of is the Civil Air Patrol. Trying to make any kind of improvement (such as
securing emergency backup power) is an incredible fight, with threats of getting
kicked out of the organization at every step of the way. CAP frequencies are
now a big secret (as if frequency counters don't exist) and everything is dealt
with on a "channel" basis. Tell me how that will foster interagency
communications? I am also a member of MARS, which consist of radio amateurs who
volunteer to help in emergency situations (and more) by passing messages, making
phone patches, etc. But, despite a large number of members being at the ready,
on the nets, and fully capable of doing their work, there are few if any
stations in the disaster area to talk to. Why? MARS members are the general
public, which is not allowed in, and other agencies aren't cooperating due to
the above issues.
Technology marches on, however. Us techies may not be
able to solve these bureaucracy problems but we are building the technology base
to be ready if the top level issues are resolved. Besides the SDR projects,
there are efforts to improve HF modem waveforms, both closed and open source.
There is a fantastic effort by Army MARS to improve ALE and FS-1052 protocols
which is showing tremendous progress. At this point, the performance is well
beyond what original DoD contractors achieved, and guess what? The development
costs have been infintessimal compared to those sweetheart deals won by
lobbyists. Again, this is a top level management problem, not a technical one.
It is virtually impossible to unseat entrenched large political donors
(regardless of the party they donate to).
When the management problems
are addressed, the technology will be there.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
| Great article, and I will be looking at the project code later, to see how it
works, being an inquisitive engineer. I don't want to seem negative, but the
very biggest problem of software defined radio is that it is usually possible,
by changing the code, to make it do things thet are illegal in most countries,
i.e. using frequencies, power levels or modulation methods that are not in
accordance with local laws. This even applies to some wireless LAN cards etc,
which is one of the reasons why documentation is sometimes withheld from FOSS
developers. Now in these cases the power level is quite low, and the probabliity
of being a real nuisance over a large area is minimal. But with serious
communications equipment a lot of unitended damage can be caused, for example
both air traffic control and railway signalling can be disrupted. Now there
has to be a way forward, acceptable internationally, but it needs to be
addressed by those in authority, to make it happen. It might be a case where a
specially adapted GPL (so you can do all the usual things but must not, ever,
change certain bits) might be needed, and/or hardware may need to have specific
constraints built in. But the fact is that software-controlled and/or
implemented radio is here to stay, and means need to be provided to ensure that
it can flourish in the regulatory environment, without allowing mis-operation
that is either a nuisance to others, or dangerous. In the UK the regulations
are generally (but not always) far tighter than in the US, sometimes needlessly
so. But what is done needs to be universally acceptable, because both software
and inexpensive hardware tend to find their way to every part of the world. For
example there has been a proliferation of cheap 49MHz walkie-talkie sets for
many years, maybe 90% are illegal in the UK, and of that 90%, maybe only half or
less actually will cause interference to others. But some of them are legal in
parts of Europe, where a UK CB radio, made to a higher standard, is not. The
spectrum is finite and needs to be managed carefully, but that should not stand
in the way of progress. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Regulatory problems - a new approach needed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- Regulatory problems - a new approach needed? - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- UWB - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- UWB - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT
- Regulatory problems and The Iron Law of Oligarchy - Authored by: coats on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- Regulatory problems - a new approach needed? - Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- Regulatory problems - a new approach needed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Regulatory problems - a new approach needed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- A blast from the past. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
- Software does not change the problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 01:47 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
I'm a Ham operator and an EE, and I've followed the Software Defined Radio (SDR)
projects with great interest. Combined with Open Source, this is very definitely
a Disruptive Technology, in that it has the potential to radically change the
way several kinds of radio communications (especially emergency-response) work.
Your average conventional hand-held radio, whether Amateur service or
business-band or emergency-response system, can ONLY operate on a few limited
freqencies in one frequency band (or at most two to three Amateur bands, for
more recent Ham sets). If you're a police user on a VHF radio, forget about
communicating with a National Guard unit on an HF band.
A software-defined radio can be operated on ANY frequency within the
capabilities of its hardware design; with a moderate amount of hardware (smaller
than a shoebox), such a radio can be made to operate on any or all frequency
bands used by anyone you care to talk with. Since this is all
software-controlled, the right user interface software makes it possible to
operate on any of those bands RIGHT NOW, by pressing the right button. Moreover,
you can operate in any mode (AM or FM analog voice, digitized voice, video
transmission, Internet connectivity, or even WiFi) for which you have an
appropriate driver. Police need to talk to Red Cross radio volunteers need to
talk to National Guard need to talk to the ambulance dispatcher? All possible in
real time with one box. And you can upgrade it at any time to add new features
without buying any new hardware.
In short, a software-defined radio can be essentially UNIVERSAL when the right
software is available. (Don't think of an SDR as just a fancy walkie-talkie, and
of no interest to you; think of it as a cellphone/wireless networking
hub/weather satellite receiver/GPS unit/all-band, all-mode walkie-talkie with a
built-in computer. This is where Open Source becomes critical, as you'll all
have figured out already. All the important features of Open Source (and many of
the same battles over open-vs-closed electronic content and) apply to the SDR
concept.
The protean nature of the SDR provides amazing opportunities and troubling
social side-effects in one package, and is bound to make some profound changes
to how radio communication is managed. That's what makes it a Disruptive
Technology. It is already beginning to change the way radio happens.
Maximizing the benefits of SDRs (think of something way more universal than a
cell phone) while avoiding the worst pitfalls (think of the chaotic cacaphony of
the effectively-unlicensed, heavily abused and essentially unusable Citizens'
Band radio service, and remember that SDRs are Open Source and can be
*universal*;) is going to be an important issue in the next few years. This is
definitely a subject of ongoing relevance and interest to the Groklaw community.
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I wonder.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- oopps!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- I wonder.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 11:49 PM EDT
- Disruptive Technologies - Authored by: jig on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Limited by what amounts to DRM - Authored by: freeio on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- SDR Business Cannibalism - Authored by: mnuttall on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 03:18 PM EDT
- So, akin to Linux hooking up Novell, Appletalk, SMB et al.. - Authored by: cheros on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- Limited Band... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 09:14 PM EDT
- Indeed... - Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT
- Oh, yes... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 07:21 AM EDT
- Disruptive Technologies - JTRS - Authored by: NetArch on Monday, September 19 2005 @ 03:42 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SwedishChef on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
A decade or so ago I was a member of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES)
in the Puget Sound area. We would drill with FEMA and State people using our own
equipment (hand held, mobile and portable) as well as equipment we had installed
at local hospitals and other locations. Operators would go with search teams and
keep communications lines open to medical teams, police agencies, etc. We even
had portable repeaters we could park in areas likely to improve communications.
My last outing with this group was a disaster simulation near Everett,
Washington. The director of the drill arrived with freshly charged cell phones
and handed them to all the team leaders. They didn't need ham radio operators
any more.
Of course they would have to keep those telephone numbers handy for everyone and
because no one else could listen in they would often not know about a problem
(or a solution) someone else was describing.
But I always wondered how they would know, just before a real disaster, when it
was time to charge all those cell phones up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
... a bit late in the postings, but regardless...
Thanks, Frank. Thought provoking, and timely of course. We can only hope that
FEMA works quickly to fix the glaring problems exposed by Katrina. Your system
would be a wonderful first step along that path.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrism on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
I am curious what sort of messages emergency response teams send to each other
when they are in the field.
I imagine it mostly consists of voice messages between members of a unit and
their commander, and a fewer number between commanders. I can't imagine it in
much detail, however.
If the hand-held could handle text messaging and had a GPS unit integrated, it
would become possible for agents to send their observations back to a server
where analysts in an office could match reqeusts with resources.
I am further guessing that the agencies that have elaborate systems to do this
figure the less the public knows about how such things are done, the better.
They would fear that widespread detailed knowledge would enable sabotuers to
develop ways to throw a wrench in their system.
And yet, from reading the stories of what worked and what didn't during the
relief effort, systems like Craigslist, which weren't even designed with
emergency relief in mind, would up being priceless while the expensive
communications arrangements that were made with full access to tactical details
were useless. There was nothing worth sabotaging.
I think it is time time government tried involving the public at large,
particularly the open source community, in developing usuable communications
systems. There are vast pools of (for now anyway) interested talent willing to
contribute, if we can push the vendors away from the trough long enough to get
something started.
Here's hoping.
Chris Marshall
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mikie on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
It must be remembered that in the past govt. agencies required communications
systems that were closed off and unique to themselves. What police dept. wanted
to hear fire traffic, what state police agency wanted to hear local chatter. If
cross communications were required, phone calls to the other agency would
suffice.
Although, this was a 'known' issue and did cause some "minor" issues,
it wasn't until 9/11 that the real impact became fully understood.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Someone I know and respect worked for the DOD a decade or so back. The
department was looking for ways to increase efficiency and get more work done
because of budget pressure. The department decided to migrate from the command
and control management structure to a team based structure. All the managers
were asked to make a list of the people they wanted on their teams to work on
their projects. When the data was compiled, my friend was selected for seven
teams. The sad part was that 70% of the workforce was not selected for any
team. The concept was scrapped.
There really are folk who work for the government that want to do a good job.
There are also those that have learned to cut red tape, lengthwise.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
| A
ustin medics in New Orleans say disorganization, lack of communication hindered
response
Members of the Austin response team say they experienced other
problems. Rescuers in boats plucking people from rooftops had no way to talk
directly to helicopter pilots to tell them where to pick up evacuees. Initially,
Austin medics also had no way of talking to state police to ask them to clear
blocked roads for ambulances.
At one point, Bergh said, he and other
frustrated Austin officials drove to a Federal Emergency Management Agency
command post on the outskirts of New Orleans and offered to link themselves to
the agency's communication system.
Bergh and two other high-ranking Austin
emergency workers said federal officials refused to surrender their frequencies,
citing security. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Frequencies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Frequencies - Authored by: rusty0101 on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- Frequencies - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 09:32 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
Start applying Open Source principles of organization, robustness, peer review
to our government.
The waste right now is unimanagible.
A recent study showed that most people worldwide do not trust their governments
and that academics should have more say in how things are run.
What kind of system could Open Source gurus dream up? Think of Windows as the
present form of government. SURELY we can do better!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Make sure your tinfoil hat is set:
Lawmakers push responder spectrum law
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1047105.php/
Lawmakers_push_responder_spectrum_law
"In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a bi-partisan group of lawmakers
Thursday vowed a new push for legislation freeing up part of the broadcast
spectrum for the nation`s firefighters, paramedics and police, a move they
said was long overdue."
Then the earlier article :
Digital TV changeover suggested for 2009
http://news.com.com/Digital+TV+switch+suggested+for
+2009/2100-1028_3-5785519.html?tag=nefd.top
"Millions of American television sets that receive only analog
over-the-air broadcasts could go dark if not upgraded by Jan. 1, 2009
The committee is readying legislation expected this year that would require
all American televisions to run on digital signals by the end of 2008.
That would free up the analog, or 700 MHz, spectrum for other uses such as
broadband services and communications for emergency workers."
With a touching plea from Senator McCain:
"The bombings last week in London reinforced the immediate need for this
spectrum," McCain said, noting that Scotland Yard had to "borrow
spectrum" in order to meet its needs.
---------------------------
Is the will to allocating more spectrum to emergency services genuine, or is
this just a pretext for say, cell phone companies to grab that juicy
spectrum ??
This ties very well with the other plan for DRM content: force all TV sets to
be mandatorily Digital _only_, (this will free spectrum for
"the children", I mean emergency services). The fact that the new
(mandatory too) Digital standard will enforce encrypted decoding (DRM) from
within the digital monitor is mere happenstance. Broadcasted or cable movies
and shows will no longer be recordable....
_Arthur
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
| And it's been true for a long time.
In the early 1900s, it was thought
that to send signals a great distance, you needed to use long wavelengths (low
frequencies). To keep the amateurs out of the commercial stations hair, the hams
were banished to "200 Meters and Down" (frequencies higher than 1.5MHz). It
didn't take long for the amateurs to make the short waves work better (transmit
further, with less power) than the commercial longwave stations.
In the
1950s, Gen. Curtis LeMay convinced the Air Force to switch from AM (Amplitude
Modulation) to SSB (Single SideBand) by doing a side-by-side comparison using a
borrowed amateur station.
During the Viet Nam War, the standard military HF
radio transceiver was the Collins KWM-2, a top-of-the-line amateur
rig.
Today, a ham can buy an all mode transceiver covering all frequencies
from 1.8 to 174 MHz, 100W output power, for $1500. A VHF high-band FM
transceiver with 75W costs under $200.
---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
What works best in these worst-case disasters is plain old conventional
point-to-point two-way radio. Communications devices that rely on centralized
infratructure (e.g., cell phones, "Nextel PTT", repeaters, IP radios,
etc.) fail when there supporting equipment wash out to sea... Communications
failed in Florida the same way exactly a year ago. Nice to have lots of
technology to play with during normal operations, but everyone needs to
coordinate and maintain emergency equipment & resources when something like
this happens again. Hams are ideal for this because most all use and maintain
this kind of equipment (local communications using portable and mobile
transceivers in the 144 MHz & 440 MHz bands) and well as HF (long distance
communications in the 1.8 to 20 MHz bands).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rharvey46 on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
Althought this software has its home in Linux, I was wondering if it also exists
for Windows and (perhaps) other operating systems or environments. I am
wondering this especially in regards to the existing FEMA hardware and software
for Radio (and other current implementors). Would it be possible - using the
same PC (without replacing the OS), to use the OpenSource implementation
legally? From what I understand, GPL software could be installed even on the
proprietary operating system. Perhaps, the software could run under cygwin ?
Would there be an opportunity to implement OpenSource SDR on a practically
hardware-only solution (I.e. a shoe-box sized PC) at low cost - using Linux or
another OS as a basis - or even without an OS?
Could there be implementations that are more portable, perhaps in Java or other
cross-platform languages?
Another concern I have is - would the software really be legal - from the
standpoint of Bandwidth, Frequency licensing etc.
It is not a case of not liking / considering Linux as far as I am concerned, but
I do have a concern that Federal (and State) agencies may not have that option -
or it would be considered improper for various (mostly political) reasons - for
example the (invalid) SCO lawsuit which does/may block other options. I can not
imagine Redmond switching its FEMA / WAEMA (?) implmentation to Linux for
example without repercussions.
To me, it appears that Open Standards may be more important here than Open
Source - unfortunately, the current 'standard' is to have neither.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 16 2005 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
Amazing - just dam amazing
Is there anything that Linux can't be used for.
I know I can't think of one.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: paivakil on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 02:18 AM EDT |
The GNU project already has software based radio. It will be using simple
inexpensive, commonly available hardware.
Two links:-
GNU Radio
Explorin
g GNU Radio.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
I worked for ITT Aerospace 10 years ago on the Army SINCGARS radio as a Test
Engineer. For the Army, it worked very well and still does to this day. It has
greatly exceeded all the system requirements. And that's fine, if you're in the
Army and want to talk with the Army. Until only recently, however, the Army
could not talk to the Air Force (or Navy) without going thru their command
centers. The Air Force now has SINCGARS too, except it is UHF/VHF. (The Army is
VHF only). And if they wish to talk to each other on a secured channel, they had
beeter have a battle plan to "sync" the radios. Unsecured channels are
open to any radio within range. As of now, I know of several companies making
UHF/VHF SINCGARS radios: Rockwell/Collins, ITT, and Raytheon. How well they
interoperate, I do not know. BTW, SINCGARS is an acronym (of course, it's
military). It means Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System.
Now, how is SINCGARS going to communicate with FEMA, CG, Red Cross, etc?! And
here's a (not so) funny thing: ITT was trying desparately to get civilian
authorities to use a less secure form of SINCGARS! The only way that could be a
good thing is every govt agency used it, thereby becoming a defacto standard. We
all know how that would work out.
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
| The FlexRadio Systems SDR-1000 HF+VHF transceiver was reviewed in the April 2005
issue of QST magazine, and coincidentally, a follow-up review is in the
current (October) issue of QST. ---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
This article brings up a good point: there is more at stake than
interoperability. Even in the desktop computer realm, there are raster image
formats (e.g. PNG, GIF, JPEG), vector images (Illustrator, SVG), file system
formats (NTFS, FAT, ISO, Joliet), file compression (ZIP, RAR, TAR with GZIP),
encryption, etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jadeclaw on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
are nearly the smallest problems the FEMA has.
The bigger problems:
An
amazing amount of pure incompetence,
corruption up to the highest
level,
avengelist and dominionist dominated politics
and screw-ups
galore.
Which is documented here.
(With
links to the source, of course.)
---
Best regards
Jadeclaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Communication problems - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Problem is - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 18 2005 @ 07:59 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
Your quote of "The only system on the horizon that might possibly fill the
bill was ours. " is NOT quite true. There are several systems that allow
each unique radio type and band that the Gov't folks use to talk to each other.
Raytheon makes one that I know about personally, and there are others. And yes
it is software driven but it's not open source. The system is not widely
deployed as it is brand new on the market but it DOES exist so your statement is
not quite true. In fact the DHS/FEMA were the target customers as well as large
cities. There other types of these cross-channel systems that are used by the
military on Command and Control aircraft such as the Joint Stars. If you had
said only OPEN SOURCE or GPL system then you would be more correct.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not Quite True - Authored by: fb on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- Not Quite True - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 11:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 17 2005 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
As we all know, the internet has its origin in a military system designed to be
very robust.
After 9-11, the only reliable communication was e-mail. The government could
still communicate using their Blackberries.
You can have as much or as little security as you want. You can do person to
person or you can do a message board. You can do text or voip.
This would be a really good time for the Pentagon to pump some money into
developing an RF standard. Then all emergency services should have to convert
to that standard over the next ten years. Billions of people can communicate
using the internet but the police can't talk to the fire department. Give me a
break!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MplsBrian on Monday, September 19 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
Congress is waking up. Here's an op-ed piece from today's Washington Post.
Senators McCain & Lieberman are working with two Representatives to get
things started for improving communications for the next disaster.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/18/AR20
05091801256.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:11 PM EDT |
Here's details about that first software-controlled HF transceiver for
hams:
100 Watt PEP HF, 500mW 6m Software Defined Transceiver.
The
transciever is fully assembled and tested. Includes parallel control
cable.
Why are they driving this newly designed $1375
transceiver off a parallel port
and thus through
dreadfully thick cables that
can't be very long? It's been 15 years since I gladly
abandoned parallel ports.
Sigh, since computers came
along, innovation by amateur radio operators (and
I'm
one) has had this weird quirk. Guys working on ham gadgets seem to have
stopped their
technological education a decade or more in the past, perhaps
when they
retired. They seem to assume that most hams get their computers by
driving
around neighborhoods looking for what people have put on their front
lawn
with a "free
computer" sign attached. They rarely adopt a technology
before everyone else
has abandoned it. From the hobby that pioneered SSB and
moonbounce,
that's
sad.
Why did they
spend large sums developing this
hardware, but link it to the outside
through clumsy, archaic protocols? Hasn't
anyone told
these guys that the much, much better USB replaced parallel and
serial
ports over five years ago?
It's like looking at a brand new car and
finding it has a 6-volt, tube-radio
with a
vibrator
installed.
--Too
embarassed to leave my name. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2005 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
It seems the author and Sen. John McCain have two
different takes on the
communication problem that surfaced
in New Orleans. The senator apparently
wrote an op-ed,
which he subsequently pimped to the major news channels,
defining the FEMA communication problem as the result of
the networks failing
to turn over the analog spectrum
after having received the HD spectrum. When
questioned by
a reporter, amazingly, McCain had no explanation as to why
the
analog spectrum hadn't been surrendered to the
government yet. He full well
knows that doing that would
render every analog television out there obsolete
overnight. This would cause an uproar even larger than
the uproar over New
Orleans response. But instead, when
questioned over this, he played dumb.
So it looks like there is going to be more pressure at the
FCC for
faster transition to HD television, so that McCain
can use the FEMA/New Orleans
excuse to get government
hands on the analog spectrum, doing the bidding of
their
masters, the MPAA/RIAA.
My question to the author is, did the
lack of analog
spectrum cause the failure of communications in New
Orleans?
Or is it possible that the problem would be the
same or worse, considering that
if any repeaters are
required for closed systems on the communication devices
used on the surrendered analog spectrum, and those
repeaters are damaged as
most certainly radio repeaters
were damaged for police and other emergency
systems as
reported for existing radio systems in New Orleans?
Was/is/will communications problems attributable to
damaged/destroyed
repeaters, can this be alleviated by
television analog spectrum which will just
as likely
require repeaters as well? Did FEMA communications fail
in New
Orleans because we didn't transition to HD TV as
fast as the MPAA would like so
they could implement their
broadcast flags in televisions, set-top cable
company
boxes and tivos? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
