Disqus - Latest Comments for anonymousrex

Re: Network-neutrality debate begins in earnest

anonymousrex — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:33:50 -0000

This is easy as dirt. The proper solution, which we will never adopt, is to force separation of transport and content:

a. Allow the transport provider to bill based on bits consumed, with a demand charge for extra-high bits/sec at different times of day and night (just like the power company does).

b. Require the transport provider to bill everyone in the same fashion: If I consume 10 gigabits per month, and I consumed some of it at some rate above a threshold rate, then I'd pay the same as the next fellow who consumed the same amount and had the same demand curve. Require the transport provider to publish his rate schedule(s) as standard for all customers.

c. Require the transport provider to not discriminate based on source, destination, or content of traffic OTHER than traffic labeled as National Security / Emergency Preparedness traffic (with criteria established by the FCC as was done for GETS and WPS).

d. Hold the transport provider not liable for any content passed over his networks. Make the originator solely liable.

Why does this have to be so hard?

Re: A fine line exists between consensus and repression

anonymousrex — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:30:42 -0000

I'd love to see public safety have a network like this. Certainly we need to equip them well enough to deal with their adversaries.

That being said, however, it's time for some hard facts: (1) We are broke as a nation. (2) We are, counting unfunded obligations to Social Security and Medicare, some $56 trillion in debt. That works out to about $600,000 per taxpayer (the cost of one or two HOMES!) (3) With this level of indebtedness, we have already limited the potential for the next 2-3 generations; if we do not change our direction, we will shackle them in economic slavery that they cannot escape from for their entire lives. This is a horrible legacy to leave behind. (4) Congress knows this full well, but is beholden to those who contribute to its campaigns first and foremost.

Against this backdrop, it doesn't appear to me to be wise to say that Congress can "...find the money if it wants to." How, exactly, is Congress supposed to do this?

Some will argue that since the Congress is already as irresponsible as they are, adding some more irresponsibility is not going to hurt that much. That may be tactically true, but it's definitely strategically false. All the irresponsibility will eventually have to be paid for, and the repayment will be more and more painful the longer it is delayed. To state it differently, the chickens will come home to roost--but they will be 8-foot-tall mutant chickens with bat skin instead of feathers and a desire to eat human flesh. Who's ready to feed their children and grandchildren to them?

I don't like writing these words, but there's no other way. If public safety wants this network, they are going to have to once again figure out how to make it revenue-neutral. For certain public safety is going to have to be willing to separate things into "gotta have" and "nice to have" categories, and they are going to have to be willing to put things on the table they've never put there before (such as the loss of control that was alluded to).

Re: Electric grid, emergency communications vulnerable to electromagnetic weapons

anonymousrex — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:13:14 -0000

I'd worry a lot more about deliberate jamming and physical damage than I would about EMP, methinks. Need to have backup plans if primary communications systems fail or are jammed...how many jurisdictions even think this way?

Re: 4 best practices: military communications

anonymousrex — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:44:19 -0000

There are a few other things that the military does that are not discussed here.

1. They plan on not having infrastructure available. If public safety really is serious about continuing to operate during a large disaster or catastrophe, they should be at the very least considering how they could operate in an infrastructureless mode, or better yet architecting their new systems to be able to transfer to such operation and back seamlessly. Instead, they will continue to build high-site repeatered systems and hope like crazy they continue to operate during the next disaster (or have to explain why they didn't).

2. They are willing to spend money to set and enforce technical standards. DoD does not just leave standardization of communications equipment to TIA or to a single manufacturer for the most part; in those instances where they do, they get in the same trouble that public safety and everyone else does. Particularly as it bears on their relations with NATO and coalition forces, they insist on standard protocols, etc., that are supplied by multiple manufacturers. P25 is public safety's answer to this; it's been far too long in coming (not any fault of the folks involved other than to make the case firmly a long time ago that Federal involvement in and funding of standardization was needed).

3. They plan on interference and jamming. Along with #1, they expect interference and jamming as part of their environment, and they train and equip based on that. How many public safety entities know how to deal with a jammer or jammers?

Re: Vendors moving steadily in the right direction on digital radio noise problem

anonymousrex — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:34:25 -0000

DoD has to operate around artillery, tanks, and other generators of "loud noises". Their choice of vocoder seems to be MELP-E rather than AMBE/IMBE. MELP-E works in a narrowband channel, too. Could it be that DoD solved this problem with a different vocoder? Wonder how these vocoders compare?