Slashdot Mirror


First Responder Networks 5 Years After 9/11

stinkymountain writes, "Five years after 9/11, you'd think all of the nation's first responders would be on a state-of-the-art wireless network that would enable police, fire and other emergency personnel to talk to each other in case of a disaster. But they're not -- yet. Network World ran an investigative piece sketching why progress has been so slow, and describing the progress that has been made." The article leads off with a scenario that represents the toughest possible test for a first-responder network. Even the best imaginable networked system might bog down in the midst of "fog of war" situations.

44 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Hey Congress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Lack of funding is a major impediment. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has helped Washington, D.C., and Denver with grants to upgrade wireless systems, but it hasn't been able to cover the cost for all of the major cities in the United States. Replacing all of the infrastructure used by first responders would cost more than $40 billion, Vaughan estimates. "That's a problem," he says.

    Here's a chance to bring a shit load of money to your districts WITHOUT it being considered pork! Duh!

    1. Re:Hey Congress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The communication problerm, on 9/11 was too simple ..

      A device called a repeater is a radio receiver and transmitter that re-transmit the low power walkie talkies from a high location, with much higher power giving these hand held transceivers much increased range both in terms of receive and transmit distance .

      This so called failure was no failure at all
        Its a political Football for one simple reason

      Many of the the repeater(s) that provided these communications were on the trade center itself !
          Nothing else need be said,
      No matter how well it worked, It cant work if it is gone
      Poleticans can care less about how it works. And why it cant

    2. Re:Hey Congress! by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have some idea of how to build and maintain distributed RF networks. They way you phrased your question seems to indicate that you do not. I get the thought that you and others have this model in your head where Radio systems are all some magic digital mesh network. They are not. Many of them are using 15 year old technology or older. To create the kind of emergency network communications system that we all think should already be in place would require a basic replacement of much of the current communications systems.

      There are several basic reasons for this: 1-There is old technology still in use. 2-Current systems were paid for piece-meal, by one department or another and not purchased, planned, or configured for wide dispersion communications cooperatives. That is to say that the fire dept. buys their gear, the police buy their own gear too, and someone has the unfortunate job of trying to make the two systems match up at some level, usually not a great matchup. 3-Financing means that the updates to even the most coordinated of communications systems happens in fits and starts. So, while the police get new comms gear, its 5+ years before the fire dept. catches up, but then their gear is much better, or supercedes the old police system. Hospitals get upgrades even less frequently! Now, add to this the need for additional comms channels to FEMA, Army, National Guard, Coast Guard, municipal utilities, power utility, gas, water, etc. etc. The chances of getting all those systems on the same page is a bigger problem than just getting FEMA to take appropriate actions.

      After 911, there were multiple deptartments, cities, and services involved. After Katrina/Rita, there were multiple states involved, and their multiple comms systems.

      The only sure way is a huge forklift style upgrade of just about everyone's comms systems. BTW, adding geographical redundancy is a huge cost to all those groups, so get ready mr. and mrs. taxpayer... its a huge cost.

    3. Re:Hey Congress! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Take a look at AirWave O2, which is the service used by police in the UK. Not only is each handset on a common channel, but they can also be individually dialled, and as a result put into groups. It's not WiFi, but it works.

      Ambulance services are starting to hook into AirWave as well, and from what I've seen when working as a volunteer medic at live events (100,000+ people) the difference between talking to your local team, talking to the site team and talking to police on the site team is as simple as hitting a button.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:Hey Congress! by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all, most of those design criteria are only relevant for maybe 1% of real-world situations. Optimize for the 99% case and have a handful of units on standby for the extreme cases. Second, I'd bet your average cell phone has better life expectancy under adverse conditions than most of those police radios. Why? Because they are mass-manufactured and have to be able to survive the abuse of teenagers and have a low enough failure rate that the manufacturer won't get dumped by the cell provider. Seriously.

      Second, you're right about dead spots. On the flip side, that's an issue no matter what communication mechanism you use. The laws of physics come into play. Increase the transmitter power and you increase interference between devices and create a channel clutter problem that is just as problematic as dead spots if not more so. It is a trade-off

      Third, only the servers that manage inter-unit communication need to be centralized, and you can still have more than one of them, located in separate locations, on separate networks. That way no matter how the regional network splits, there will always be one on the right side of the split... if you do the wiring right, of course. And with multiple backbones between the servers that are geographically isolated, you can make the split effectively go away. Since that sort of equipment could be stuck in a half dozen wire closets around the city (telephone company pedestals, etc.), it is nothing at all like the situation in 9/11 where the equipment all ends up in the basement of ground zero....

      Finally, security isn't as hard as you might think. Your protocol should include crypto anyway. The worst case problem would be some terrorist flooding an AP with noise to disrupt the data communication, but that is just as easy no matter what technology. At least with a distributed mesh of nodes forwarding traffic for each other, you could conceivably handle such a case (within reasonable limits).

      Really, 802.11s would be a good place to begin rather than a, b, or g, but....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Hey Congress! by RobertLTux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a fun way of putting the requirements for the radios is:
      You should be able to run over the radio with your squad car have it skid into a pond and have a K-9 unit fish it out of said pond drop it into a firepit

      and survive multiple times

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    6. Re:Hey Congress! by cbacba · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being well Trained in emcomm and having some inkling of military strategy, I must state that any communications requiring infrastructure is at serious risk of failure or attack. Also, newer technologies are at higher risk of failure due to their complexity. These are facts which are demonstrated in every serious disaster. The only thing for sure is that point to point communications that use no infrastructure can be established.

      My own county and city's 800 MHz system failed only a few months ago in a minor weather disaster, one with no injuries and relatively little minor damage due to some F0-F1 tornadoes and high winds which uprooted trees. The sheriff's dept, police dept, public works, all except the fire department which had kept their 150mhz radios as a backup, were down, evidently due to a single point failure of a minor power outage at the tower with a failure of the backup generator. Since I was at the emergency operations center at the time, I was aware of the situation. My comment to the county EM was that such equipment wasn't supposed to fail until there was actually a real emergency.

      In order to be cost effective, communications systems must be designed to minimize costs while performing adaquately during the 99% of the time where only normal communications are occuring. During an emergency, equipment is failing, people are missing (evacuating, taking care of family, stranded, or perhaps worse), and the need for additional communications capability is rising exponentially, overloading everything still available. Note that the differences between 911, Katrina, Rita, forest fires and earthquakes are essentially extent of damaged area, severity of damage and the duration of the disaster.

      During such emergencies, skilled communicators become a very rare commodity. It requires skill and training to accurately convey information under emergency conditions. These are things that many first responders do not even have unless specifically trained with ongoing practice.

      Another factor that becomes a problem is that unused equipment tends to develop problems. Batteries run down, connectors go flakey, capacitors deteriorate. Stockpiling equipment is unlikely to solve the problems, especially without the trained personel to man the equipment. Stockpiling sufficient quantites of trained employees would be so expensive as to bankrupt the whole society.

      Newer technology is valuable only when it provides benefit, something beyond putting the salesman's kids through college. Virtually all things offer advantages and disadvantages under certain circumstances and seldom does one find only advantages. Older technology doesn't mean it is obsolete or even inferior in every circumstance.

      For example, cell phones are just radios that are easy to use, if you've got a good cellphone system and plenty of money to waste on minutes. They are extremely low power and very small and portable. In serious emergencies situations, where most or all of the cell phone infrastructure is gone and there is no power to recharge their batteries, these modern creations are totally useless whereas a world war II antique army walkie talkie would actually be usable.

      If you thought 911 was a disaster, just wait until the terrorists decide to do an orchestrated attack against New York City's water and sewage treatment facilities.

  2. CB channel 9 for 802.11 by w33t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reading about how the radios could not communicate inside of certain buildings I wonder if it might make sense to include an "emergency" channel in wireless networking equipment. After all, many warehouses have wireless access points setup for their mobile inventory devices.

    This 802.11 emergency channel that could be activated and used by emergency personell equipped with special radios - kind of a "skype-911".

    1. Re:CB channel 9 for 802.11 by loose+electron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does everyone love to point the finger at 802.11 for things it was never designed to do?

      Internet methods for emergency communication in a burning building where the power plug has been pulled? Dependence on computer systems in these types of emergencies?

      I don't thinks so.

      --
      www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
    2. Re:CB channel 9 for 802.11 by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a nice idea, but can you imagine how fast it would be abused?! "Hello, random router, I'm a ... fire official ... please let me route traffic through you." Heck, you could boostrap an entire fidonet-like service in any major city without spending a dime.

      No, the bottom line is that, when you're inside what is essentially a faraday cage, you're screwed. You might have the radios figure this out and talk directly to eachother, but that's about as good as you're going to get. The only way around it that I can think of would be to drop a repeater in a doorway or blow down a wall.

    3. Re:CB channel 9 for 802.11 by identity0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I've wondered is if they can't set up a system to prioritize calls through the cell phone system during an emergency, to allow first responders to communicate. It seems that during every regional-level disaster, the cell system gets jammed, basically DDoS'ed, by lots of anxious people calling relatives. While that's understandabele, I think it would be more useful to allow people involved in disaster relief or law enforcement "first priority" status for calls.

      It might be feasable to do it with either a registry of first responder cell phone numbers, or special SIM chips that could be used during emergencies to give higher priority to traffic. Of course, it might just be impossible given the current cell infrastructure.

      Another thing is that the people trying to contact relatives to check on them is random and disorganized. I remember multiple privately-run lists of people who had fled hurricane Katrina on the web, which led to a bunch of redunduncy and confusion at the time. I'm suprised the federal government hasn't created a "find people that have been evacuated" site yet. Having a central source people could turn to would make things easier and probobly lessen the amount of traffic over the regular phone system.

    4. Re:CB channel 9 for 802.11 by dan+the+person · · Score: 2, Informative

      What I've wondered is if they can't set up a system to prioritize calls through the cell phone system during an emergency, to allow first responders to communicate

      They already do that, at least for GSM equipment, not sure about the US stuff.

      During the london underground bombings they turned off public access to the cells around aldgate.

    5. Re:CB channel 9 for 802.11 by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You might have the radios figure this out and talk directly to eachother, but that's about as good as you're going to get. The only way around it that I can think of would be to drop a repeater in a doorway or blow down a wall.

      And both are valid solutions I was thinking of mentioning (ignoring the one about blowing down a wall). Why can't the radios mesh and have one (or more) that can talk to the nearest fixed repeater act as a local repeater? Why can't they have repeaters they can drop in the middle of the building to take care of the problem? I know that some police cars have repeaters built into them, so why not have a briefcase one for emergency use? If it's such a huge warehouse, I'm sure that police cars could have driven in it directly, why not drive the cars in and have the repeaters in them help out?

      The problem is that the people designing the systems are non-technical and the technical people are being involved only after the system is designed and the budget is approved. When someone is given $5 million to build a wireless network to have 98% outdoor coverage and that is the correct amount for that task, he can't make it also cover inside to that same 98%. So, they need to get the tech people in the design process sooner. They need creative people with technical understanding to come up with scenarios like the failure listed so that the people that approve the budget can decide whether they will or will not address such problems.

    6. Re:CB channel 9 for 802.11 by LeRandy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To add to that, GSM towers at the moment (at least in the UK) prioritise calls to the emergency number, and *will* throw non-emergency calls off-air if the tower is full. Competitor's towers will also take an emergency call, regardless of any roaming agreements, and you do not need to have a valid phone service - even without a SIM card, the emergency number should still work.

      As an aside, the TETRA system is being deployed in a number of european countries for the emergency services, and this system allows both direct peer-to-peer calling when network contact has been lost, and will also allow any handset to act as a relay (or part of a chain of relays) between the network and an inaccessible area. The cited example is rescuing someone from a cave, but I imagine it will suffice in other situations.
      You can also use peer-to-peer direct communications in day-to-day usage, so for example, a Police helicopter can be put in direct contact with officers on the ground, and telephone calls can be routed to/from the handsets, meaning that police officers never need to carry a cell on duty.

  3. A local... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A local Fire/Police organization was recently trying to upgrade their radios to a newer system. The project failed spectacularly with huge cost overruns and was eventually cancelled. Their solution? Award a virtually identical contract to the same vendor for the same system. The problem is government...wasteful spending brought on by too many years of overfunding. Where a $5 solution would suffice, they ALWAYS spend $500. The solution? I dunno, anarchy maybe.

  4. Homeland Security is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The department, and the concept. Unfortunately, it was just a tool for the government to pretend to do something about the problem - the illusion of safety, if you will. For all the whining Americans do about having to pay taxes, you'd think they'd demand that the department do its fucking job.

  5. Easier said than done by OakDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like a lot of things, this is one problem that cries out "Something must be done! This is something; therefore, it must be done."

    It's easy to look at the communication failures on 9/11 and recognize we need a better way of doing things. And it seems like a fairly simple problem that can be solved by a neat, tidy bureaucratic process. But as the example of the warehouse full of refigerators shows, it's really not that simple.

  6. Over kill may be the problem. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why use broadband? I am trying to understand why the SWAT team lost communication in the building? Do they used a centralized system? It is impossible for each SWAT member to talk peer to peer with each other SWAT team member?
    Come on people streaming video is nice but not at the expense of calling for help.
    Maybe they should start carrying a few simple HTs as back up for their super wiz-bang system.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Over kill may be the problem. by loose+electron · · Score: 2, Informative

      CB at 27MHZ with AM modulation?

      Wrong frequency and wrong modulation method.

      You want something that will surive multpath reflections without a lot of degeneration - that says over 100-200 MHz.

      You want somthing that can sort out the signal and work with it after it has reflected off of a bunch of things and is getting received. If it is voice alone, then something like FM would work.

      But then I just described a lot of the police radios already out there.

      If you want it to be digital, then you need a multipath resilent modulation scheme. OFDM is where you go to do that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COFDM

      Above is a good overview.

      Ideally, you want the capability for group communication, selective communication, and knowing the location of all the radio units at the control base station.

      In a perfect world - Let's add the capability for everyone to communicate with the base station getting wiped out and no transponder/repeater dependency in a pinch. Barring those, lots of redundancy in the system, so if one gets wiped out, then another can take over.

      If you are not aware of it, that has been around for for disaster communication for quite a while:

      http://www.arrl.org/pio/emergen1.html

      The distributed nature of the above, and all the redundancy of the multiple sources make it work, albeit not perfectly. Hm.... sounds like a terrorist network doesn't it?

      --
      www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
  7. Feb 2009, FCC Mandate by neonprimetime · · Score: 3, Informative

    Probably the biggest single reason is the lack of available spectrum needed to support broadband wireless devices for public-safety radios.

    That is finally about to change. The FCC has mandated that TV stations give up the 700MHz channels and that bandwidth be available for broadband public safety applications. Unfortunately, that switch wont occur until February 2009.

  8. What does 9/11 really have to do with this? by mendaliv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It strikes me that in this article, they're just using 9/11 to shock people into seeing a problem that was *already there to begin with*.

    The warehouse shootout they mentioned probably would've happened the way it did, 9/11 or not, and the departments would still have complained that they needed more funding for better comms gear than they can afford.

    1. Re:What does 9/11 really have to do with this? by Mikachu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's because it's a great example of how the government is pouring tons of money into things like homeland security and yet it's (obviously) not going where it needs to.

      The problem, in my opinion, is not really lack of funding on homeland security, it's just not really being put in the right places.

  9. government failure in action by jay2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The federal government not only should have figured out standards for first responder radios, it ought to have provided the radios to all first responders. Any time you hear a politician compare the Al Queda threat to WWII, try to remember that if President Roosevelt had responded in the slow, unfocused manner President Bush has, we would all be speaking german now. In WWII, this country completely transformed its economy in less than 2 years to rapidly produce ships, planes and tanks. In 2006, we can't even get working radios. How the mighty have fallen.

  10. Of course not. by JavaLord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Five years after 9/11, you'd think all of the nation's first responders would be on a state-of-the-art wireless network that would enable police, fire and other emergency personnel to talk to each other in case of a disaster.

    Five years after 9/11 you'd think we would have reformed our INS department, so that people who pose no threat could gain citizenship with more ease, and people who might be a threat were deported.

    Five years after 9/11 you'd think we would have the most secure airlines in the world, with sensible screening processes, yet we do not.

    Five years after 9/11 you'd think we would have had an honest review of our interventionist foreign policies since the end of the cold war, by Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush yet this hasn't happened.

    Five years after 9/11 you'd think we would have made more progress in developing our own energy, or finding alternative fuels to use.

    The only conclusion we can draw is that government, especially big government moves slowly, and is not doing the will of the American public. The American public is just too distracted to care. I blame world of warcraft.

    1. Re:Of course not. by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The American public is just too distracted to care.

      That's completely unfounded bullshit. I assume you come to this conclusion in one of the common ways: the government doesn't tell you of the millions of phone calls, emails, and letters they get from citizens and organizations who care, so you assume they don't get many; Bill O'Reilly and others broadcast that the public is in uproar over "the war against Christmas" and never mention what the public is actually thinking since they don't know.

      The fact is only 2 things tell us what the general public is thinking: polls and votes. The largely inaccurate polls might tell us the president's approval rating is low, but tell us nothing of what the people actually want done. Voter turnout tells us that people think the candidates are too similar to make a vote matter, or there is no one running who they are interested in. If there were candidates who really stood out, were well spoken, and spoke to the heart of what most of the public is actually thinking there would be huge turnout and all of a suddon you'd think people really cared. It's a lack of options, not a lack of caring.

    2. Re:Of course not. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Five years after 9/11 you'd think that people would be over it so we wouldn't have to see the victims bodies being waved on political poles over and over and over....

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Of course not. by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A Ray Nagin fan, eh? I'll tell you why work on the WTC plaza is so slow:

      1. There was a lot of debris. I don't think anyone who hasn't seen the towers can possibly understand the enormity of these buildings. It simply doesn't register unless you've stood at the base and looked up. People think "yeah, yeah, a couple of big buildings, I get it." while picturing a large building they may have seen and thinking "it's a little bigger than that." Wrong... it's like 10 times bigger than that. My wife's never been to NYC, I showed her a picture of the towers and pointed at one of the tiny buildings next to it and said "see that little building? That's bigger than any building I've ever seen in Belo Horizonte [where she's from]" and that building was less than a quarter the height and probably much less than a quarter the footprint.

      2. The debris was very hazzardous, including a lot of fun things like asbestos. Remember, there was smoke rising for months after the collapse.

      3. The streets in NYC are not big enough for effective hauling of that much debris, and only so many trucks and people can be at the site. Include the fact that roads around the site were open, it makes it very difficult to effectively remove all that debris.

      4. They don't want to "fill" it, they want to build a new building there.

      5. Ray Nagin's an $%*#@(!. (Hey, everybody's entitled to an opinion, right?)

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Of course not. by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's completely unfounded bullshit.

      Voter turnout tells us that people think the candidates are too similar to make a vote matter,

      You are assuming this, but if people really cared they would pay attention and we wouldn't have candidates that are 'too similar'. I could get into how both parties rigged the presidential debates so no third party candidate could get in after Perot scared the crap out of them in 92 (19% in a 3 way race is a good showing).

      If people really wanted a four way debate badly enough, they could pressure the political parties or television networks into doing so.

      People DON'T care, that is my experence. 2004 had the largest turnout of any presidential election, coming off the 2000 elections and 9/11 which should have driven interest to an all time high. So what was the turnout like? About 122 of 300 million came out to vote which isn't even half. To me, that shows disinterest.

      As for candidates being too similar, compare Gore and Bush to Nader and Bucahnan in 2000. Do you really think they were all that similar?

    5. Re:Of course not. by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful
      All true, but off the mark. The last of the debris was hauled out quite a while ago. The reason is the mexican standoff between:
      • Larry Silverman (WTC leaseholder),
      • his insurers (who would love not to pay billions),
      • George Pataki (who would love to be president),
      • Mayor Bloomeberg (who would love to have a viable project under way during his tenure, but who has no authority over the site),
      • the survivors' organizations (who would love a memorial and nothing else on some of the most valuable real estate on Earth),
      • SOM (freedom tower architects),
      • the Transit Authority (who would love to be able to modernize the spaghetti of subway lines under the site),
      • and The Port Authority (landowner).

      All have wildly differing interests, all have some claim to legitimacy in determining the direction of the project, and none have a coherent vision or the individual clout to make something happen at the site.

      Add to that 3 scrapped freedom tower plans, a memorial that can't be built, and no real pressing need for a large office building there, and you have a Big Mess.

  11. Article doesn't look at every state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It appears the article failed to look at all 50 states and only take tidbits from different areas that have an issue. It states that DC is #1 in the nation for preparedness; however, if you check it would be the State of Ohio.

    After multiple years (starting well before 9/11) and Millions of Public Dollars, Ohio offically rolled out MARCS (Multi Agency Radio Communication System)in 2004-05. The system has towers in all 88 Ohio counties and bosts coverage of 98% of the state (some of the terrain in Southeastern Ohio prevents total coverage). MARCS has enabled all agencies, whether it be the State Highway Patrol, EMA, County Sherriff's, City Police, and other responders, to communicate with each other without restrictions.

    MARCS has also been studied by other states that are in the process of implementing their own first responders network. The article would have been better if it looked at all 50 states because while those mentioned might not be ready, I am sure there are others Like Ohio that have deployed or in the proccess of deploying multi-agency networks.

  12. Another problem.... by McFortner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another problem is that in many cases, those who make the decisions on what to buy have no experience in using the equipment. They believe whatever the sales reps tell them and the end users get stuck with equipment that works poorly while getting told that there is nothting wrong with it. Public Safety personell are cursed with equipment that does not work as well as the equipment they used to use.

    I know this because I work in public safety and we have this problem. 800 Mhz systems are being pushed heavily right now, yet nobody thinks of the problems. Sales reps gloss over problems, saying that these systems will work so much better than the VHF systems they are replacing. But these new radio systems work in the same general frequency range as the cell phones everybody has. How many times are your calls dropped because you drove into a valley or walked into a building? How would you like to be an officer searching for an armed suspect when that happens? I have had that happen, and trust me, it is not a good feeling when it does.

    The sales reps will say you don't need any extra tower sites for the new system, what you have will be more than enough. But for decent coverage in the UHF band you need your antennas on the high ground so you can cover the low areas of your coverage area and you need a lot of them. Cell phone companies understand this and put their towers on the high ground near areas of heavy usage. Unfortunately, public safety does not get anywhere near as many, and those that they do have are often set up where they already have land, such as the back yard of fire stations. These are frequently not in the best location geographically for radio coverage, and money is not spent on obtaining decent transmitter locations.

    Sales reps don't care about this. All they care about are sales. They know that once the sale is made, they are out of there and it is no longer their problem, but the buyer's. Sounds a lot like the IT field, doesn't it?

    There are 4 types of liars (in order):
    4. Liars
    3. Pathalogical Liars
    2. Car Salesmen
    1. Sales Reps

    So remember the Dispatchers saying, "Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts."

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  13. Another Attack Vector by vlakkies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTA: With IP, SWN can upgrade radio software over the network and provide mobile data support.

    The state of software security being what it is, I wonder if the next major attack would not be accompanied by a day zero exploit of a bug in the radio software that renders all the radios useless because the bad guys uploads some bad software. Vendor diversity in radios may be beneficial just as it is in operating systems.

  14. A Firefighter's Opinion by MikeyTheK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason why it hasn't happened is that WE DON'T WANT IT OR SEE THE NEED FOR IT.

    I do NOT want cops polluting my tactical channels with their blather. Do any of you own scanners? Take a listen to EMS, Fire, Law Enforcement, and Air Traffic channels. None of these groups want anybody else to contend with when the shit is hitting the fan. The vocabulary is different. The lingo is different. The culture is different. It's hard enough at an emergency scene to keep traffic to a minimum between the various commands, let alone adding several more channels that someone has to monitor, and shout over.

    This is why NIMS and Unified Command exist. The various agencies can talk to each other IN PERSON since they're face-to-face, and then relay the messages via their radio frequencies to their people.

    We don't want it. We don't need it. If you want to see how we operate in an emergency, ask to be an observer at the Command Post the next time your local jurisdiction does a mass-casualty drill. Airports do them on a grand scale once per year to once every two years. The regional Counterterrorism Task Forces do them once per year. Your regional Emergency Management Agency does it once per year. Watch and learn. We don't need more crap on the radio.

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
    1. Re:A Firefighter's Opinion by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The regional Counterterrorism Task Forces do them once per year. Your regional Emergency Management Agency does it once per year. Watch and learn. We don't need more crap on the radio.

      I have and I also notice that in REAL emergencies your stuff does not work and the HAM RADIO guys save your asses.

      Yet you ignore their reccomendations on how to fix your poorly designed communications systems because they are "hobbiests" and "amateurs" ignoring that most have more experience and education than the engineers that motorola's sales guy sent in to design your system. 800mhz trunked is stupid for emergency it always fails, great for the day to day crap though. long range VHF systems from the 60's work and continue to work and are perfect for emergencies... but you guys dont gear up for emergencies.

      Every year we offer to help and work with the regional emergency groups, they ignore us until the shit hits the fan then they come crawling asking for help. Local search and rescue groups are far more organized and effective than any of the government paid groups.. yet they as well are ignored until needed (and needed far more than people realize) Get off your high horse and involve those of us that actually know what the hell it takes to get emergency communications as well as how to actually do the tasks needed.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:A Firefighter's Opinion by MikeyTheK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, Marc. Let's continue with the 9/11 example for a moment. Actually it is MORE efficient to have the communications separate in this type of situation. Much of law-enforcement traffic uses 10- codes. However, the rest of the communication is generally verbose and free-form by fire standards. Fire communication is generally very structured and tight by police standards. Where police communications tend to be more descriptive, fire communications tend to be more generic. (And if you really want to go to the extreme, you should listen to air traffic control frequencies). Even "mayday" calls are dramatically different between police and fire. There are very important reasons for these differences.

      That is where NIMS and Unified Command comes into play. These programs and concepts provide an excellent framework for helping resolve the issues. They are handled at a high level, and the actual information and commands move up and down the chain as necessary. The interaction and translation happens off-line, so that the most limited resources at a major incident (namely radio bandwidth and a person's ability to monitor multiple conversations at once) are not compromised by the goal of getting a guy with a sledgehammer and a guy with an MP-5 to somehow mind meld.

      In big incidents things are going to break down. Cops shouldn't be doing technical rescue. Firefighters shouldn't be doing crowd control. K9 SAR shouldn't be using their animals to threaten looters. Unfortunately at big incidents lines get blurred due to the immediate need. You can't fix that by jamming more people on the radio.

      --
      Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
      Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
  15. I'm a volunteer firefighter... by ModernGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...we have an old VHF system. The city fire department, police department and sheriff office in our area are all on digital 800 Mhz systems. In order to upgrade the county fire departments, there would have to be enough money to upgrade handheld radios of over 250 firefighters at about $800 a piece. Not to mention to repeaters and such that some departments have. Don't forget the personally owned radios that the firefighters have in their vehicles, too. Of the five volunteer departments in the county, with about 50 certified firefighters (they test and train just like the paid firefighters), new radios could break any budget unless federal grant money comes in.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
    1. Re:I'm a volunteer firefighter... by castoridae · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rather than replacing the radios, have you looked into bridging solutions that might allow interoperability between your existing VHF radios and their digital radios? As long as both infrastructures are already in place, why not use them...

    2. Re:I'm a volunteer firefighter... by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 2, Informative

      there would have to be enough money to upgrade handheld radios of over 250 firefighters at about $800 a piece.

      Consider yourself lucky. Rather than fixing/adding repeaters for our old low band VHF analog system, we got a new Motorola 500 mHz trunking sytem that cost millions, and each radio costs $3200 (HT) and $3500 for a mobile. And they don't work any better. And all of our old frequencies are now each a talkgroup. So much for that dream of dynamic allocation of departments and equipment per incident that we were promised. Oh...and it doens't work as well in buildings. And the raios are bigger. The buttons are smaller. They eat batteries faster. I understand that they are more capable as a system. But I'm not seeing that as some poor schmuck fire marshall/firefighter on the street.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
  16. "Toughest Possible Test?" Not even close. Nukes? by Cr0w+T.+Trollbot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "The article leads off with a scenario that represents the toughest possible test for a first-responder network."
    Um, a lone shooter in a warehouse? Not even close. How about the following as the "toughest possible test":

    A ten kiloton nuclear weapon goes off in the heart of downtown Manhattan tomorrow.

    How's that for a test? Certainly Iran is doing everything in its power to make this a real possibility...

    - Crow T. Trollbot

  17. TETRA first responder network by d2ksla · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article didn't mention TETRA, which is an existing technology for first responder networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Trunked_R adio.

  18. Progress is slow by p2ranger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Back when I was an EMT for an ambulance company, we had 4 banks of radios we listened to. UHF, VHF, digital, and another portable digital. We talked to our dispatch ceneter on VHF, town A's fire dept on UHF, town A's police dept on digital, Town B's fire dept on VHF, Town B's police on portable digital, and then a few other agencies mixed in there as well. It was confusing at first learning which radio to talk to depending on which town's district and what type of a call you were on.

    The fire dept I'm on now has been fiddling with trying to get a radio system down. They've gone from analog to digital back to analog, and now digital again. Some people say the digital signal isn't as strong as the analog. Our digital radios don't talk to our police dept. at all. The PD recently went to digital radios, but we still can't talk to them. We have to relay everything through dispatch. As an example, we were on SWAT standby a few nights ago. We staged out and saw a police officer waving his light at us, so we drove on in. As we came in, they yelled at us to get out of there because the scene wasn't safe yet. So we staged again around the corner. Break down in communications? I'd say so.

    We also have Toughbook laptops and GSP tracking on all of our rigs. If the system worked reliably, it would be great. Supposedly the GPS coordinates are relayed to the dispatch computers for each call to determine who is closest. Info on each call from dispatch can be seen in the rig as it is entered in the comm center as well as real time mapping to map us into a call. Fairly often the system doesn't update fast enough or crashes and the officer has to pull out the run books to map us into the call. Not that using the old books is bad, but having to make the switch enroute to a call ain't good.

    There are channels that have been set aside for interagency operations. They are labeled based on which side of the metro area the call is in. I know the fire protection district next to ours has only in the last few months gotten radios that will let them talk in that new system.

    Money is a big issue. Not everyone can afford to get digital radios and antennas throughout their districts. It would be nice if everyone was on the same page. What happens for example when one of the districts that still uses analog radios responds for mutual aid to a district that is covered with digital radios?

    As long as the govt has their hands in it, the problem will never get solved.

    FF/EMT
    Colorado

  19. This is something I know a bit about... by CFD339 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm an officer in a fire department. A much smaller department of course -- but we all study the same issues and see the same FEMA, NFPA, etc. bulletins.

    The problems at the trade center were not so easily blamed on radios. Katrina related issues in New Orleans however, were influenced a great deal by radio communication problems.

    That said, here are some things to consider:

    1. Most departments are NOT like FDNY. 86% of firefighters in the USA are "on-call" not live in full timers. 96% of departments in the USA are staffed in part or in whole by on-call firefighters, and 40% of the population is protected by these "volunteers". Focusing on FDNY and their issues on 9/11 isn't doing a service to the real problem.

    2. With Katrina, every cell tower, every radio repeater, and all the power for thousands of square miles was down. Trucks with portable backup repeaters couldn't operate in the deep water and muck. With no communication, fire crews are acting as islands and cut off from knowing where emergencies are or from getting help. Police had the same problem, but the added issue of a populace which would rather fight them then help them.

    Now, taking that knowledge in hand, let's talk about what has happened since 9/11 in my little department. Since 9/11 here's what's changed:

    1. Every member of my department has their own radio at all times. This is unusual for rural departments - or was. These radios are not cheap. They run about $1500 each. Remember, not just any radio will do -- they must be "intrinsically safe" (meaning no internal sparks) and must stand up to some fairly serious abuse.

    2. Every member of my department (and most in other departments I've spoken to) has complete the now required "NIMS" (National Incident Management System) training and certification process at levels 100 and 700. Most town leaders have also completed this training. Officers such as myself also complete NIMS 300, while chiefs complete several more. This system is set up so that in an escallating emergency all responders are on the same page from a language, radio traffic, procurement, authorization, authority, and responsibility perspective as an incident grows from a single unit response to a multi-state task force. The system is patterned after a very successful program used for years by the forest service.

    3. Although most towns still use their own frequencies on their radios, in our area all the towns which are adjacent and most which are one town removed are pre-programmed on our radios. There is also a statewide non-repeated frequency so that any firefighter on the fireground has a way to communicate.

    4. I am told, though I have not seen, that for very large incidents equipment exists that allows high level incident management teams from the federal level to respond and "slot in" a radio from each local jurisdiction. This device acts as a switch of some kind, bridging the radio systems on the fly. I'm told a decision on how far down the chain that technology will be pushed is still in the works.

    5. Even in our little town of under 10,000; we've gotten together with nearby towns and drilled at mass casualty and hazardous materials incidents.

    Now, if you think there are more things we should do, consider that most "volunteers" (remember, that's 86% of firefighters) put in more than 50 hours a year of unpaid training time as it is. Where were you?

    The people who understand the failings in the 911 response but are not part of the chain of command are other firefighters. All of us, around the country, can point to things the FDNY did wrong. It's easy to do after the fact. We're also the most reluctant to do so. Our brothers may have made mistakes, but they did a lot of things right in the face of terrible danger and stress. We're reluctant to point fingers. That doesn't mean we don't discuss it among ourselves and in our training.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  20. not a problem after 2008 by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Micahel moore told me 9/11 was caused by the cralyle group in cahoots with Gerorge Bush and the Jews, so this is not going to be a problem after 2008 when there is a democrat in power. The the only thing we have to be concrened with is a missile hitting a pentagon.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace