Even as Hurricane Rita loomed before the Gulf Coast, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin told a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation yesterday that the nation's emergency responders require a mobile, wireless system that enables them to communicate with one another in times of crisis anywhere in the country.
Four years after 9/11, emergency workers and public safety officials had severe communications problems after electric power failed and telecommunication was effectively knocked out in the Katrina disaster areas of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. With more than three million customer telephone lines knocked down, significant damage to on-the-wireline switching centers and to the lines used to connect buildings and customers to the network, 38 9-1-1 call centers down, and more than 1,000 cell sites out of service, more than 20 million telephone calls did not go through the day after the hurricane, Martin told the hearing.
The new emergency responder system should be "an interoperable, mobile wireless communications system that can
be rapidly deployed anywhere in the country," Martin said. "It must allow different organizations from different jurisdictions to communicate with each other immediately... This requires that there be sufficient spectrum devoted to these purposes. And, equally importantly, it requires that first responders have equipment capable of operating on multiple frequencies in multiple formats, so that different systems can connect with each other... Properly implemented, a system with adequate spectrum and 'smart radios' would help to ensure that both data and voice are transmitted between agencies instantly, replacing multiple, lengthy phone calls to multiple agencies."
He added, "If we learned anything from Hurricane Katrina, it is that we cannot rely solely on terrestrial communications. When radio towers are knocked down, satellite communications are, in some instances, the most effective means of communicating."
Article comments
1 - Nancy
And the commercial interests fight tooth & nails to retain their control of bandwidths they were told to evacuate years ago exactly FOR emergency services, because it's convenient for them to keep using them, and the damned government at all levels keeps letting them do it because the commercial interests are the ones who make the political election donations. So: first responders basically are unable to rescue you, because your elected officials refuse to force the commerical users off the necessary bandwidths.
2 - Silas Kain
Right on, Nancy. Time for us to use our own bandwidths to register our dissatisfaction with our elected officials. The mere fact that there is not a secure communications system in place across this land in the face of September 11 is another clear example that we, as a people, have failed ourselves by electing the same people evry cycle who are failing to do the jobs they are elected to do. You want to take pride in your country again? Start by electing people you can be proud to say represents YOU!
3 - Nancy
No: start by raising hell with your state & local reps: your county executive, your state senators & representatives, your US sens & reps. Let them know that you're well aware that these bandwidths should have been turned over long ago, but that THEY have not enforced this because they've been getting paid off by the commercial interests, and you aren't going to put up with it anymore. Let then know that if there's any further screwing around with turning these bands over, for whatever reason, Sen. So & So, or Rep. Thus & Such, can count on finding him or herself in the unemployment line come the next election, if you have anything to say about it.
4 - Eric Olsen
I'm with you guys on this: no excuse 4 years after 9/11 to not have a nationwide, satellite-based, multiple-redundancy system in place
5 - Silas Kain
Need to know who your elected representatives are? Go to Project Vote Smart and begin the revolution by contacting the people who represent you. Our elected officials at all levels have failed us by not getting an emergency communications system in place. If they were that interested in national security, this would have been the place to start. Nancy is right, my friends, it's time to be stark raving mad and make some loud noise. What's it going to take to make you wake up America? A Category 5 Hurricane, 8.0 Earthquake and three more jets into skyscrapers on the same day?
6 - Nancy
Thanks, Silas. FYI, these bands were promised to the first responder services over 10 YEARS ago, but the commerical users won't let go, and the politicians won't make them go. The fire & police do NOT have issues about sharing these bands; there are enough if the damned commercial users will just get off. I know: I am a 15-year volunteer w/fire & rescue, & about 1/4 our members are cops & troopers at all levels, local & state.
7 - Eric Olsen
good for you Nancy
8 - Silas Kain
OK, Nancy, thank you for the information. The FCC has loosened regulations for broadcasters to the point where companies like Viacom and General Electric are monopolizing the airwaves and getting the FCC to do their bidding. There's a good place to start. My suggestion is to all of those who are interested in taking up Nancy's cause to begin by writing local and state level elected officials. Let them know that the prmoise is yet another unkept deal made by the government. We cannot expect our public safety personnel to deliver what they do best if we can't even provide them with the basic tools to succeed. We have an opportunity over the next 14 months to send shockwaves through every state capitol and Washington in advance of the 2006 elections. What are we afraid of, America? Improving what we have now?
9 - Eric Olsen
Martin said "This requires that there be sufficient spectrum devoted to these purposes" so he is at least addressing the issue
10 - Silas Kain
Hmm, Chairman Martin sounds like a man who is making a lot of moise in advance of hiding his own lack of experience in holding the job. Here is another example of the President's penchant to appoint the worst possible candidates to patronage positions. If you're interested in learning more about the FCC, go to their website. Here's a glimpse into Mr. Martin as displayed at the FCC website, it's quite inspiring:
Who should we be angry at more? The President or the Congress that rubber stamped everything he's done in the last 4 1/2 years? Why aren't more of you pissed off?11 - Eric Olsen
I'm not sure what IS a proper background for the FCC - I agree there is far too much political patronage rather than demonstrated competence in government
12 - Silas Kain
Well, color me stupid Eric, but doesn't one conclude that in the wake of Sept 11th, our government leaders would have put in place managers who had a clear understanding of the goals and functions of their respective department? To me the President should have selected commissioners who had strong communications backgrounds that included specialties such as bandwidth assignment, public safety and national security. There have been a sufficient number of concerns published in the last ten years about what America's communications' needs are. The public safety community has been campaigning for a variety of things that make sense since Clinton was in office. Again, here's the problem -- we react instead of being proactive. Administrations dole out jobs as rewards. As long as Senators get the pork barrel line items they need to baffle their constituencies with their bullshit, they'll advise and consent to almost anybody short of a pedophile.
13 - Eric Olsen
I agree, but keep in mind that someone with that kind of background would almost assuredly come to it from the private industry side and be criticized/suspect due to that