Slashdot Mirror


Report Rips Government Wireless Network Effort

coondoggie writes with this excerpt from NetworkWorld: "Like a bunch of children in a sandbox unable and perhaps unwilling to share their toys, multiple key government agencies cannot or will not cooperate to build a collaborative wireless network. The Government Accountability Office report (PDF) issued today took aim at the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury which had intended what's known as The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) to be a joint radio communications system to improve communication among law enforcement agencies. However IWN, which has already cost millions of dollars, is no longer being pursued as a joint development project, the GAO said. By abandoning collaboration on a joint implementation, the departments risk duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources as they continue to invest significant resources in independent solutions. Further, these efforts will not ensure the interoperability needed to serve day-to-day law enforcement operations or a coordinated response to terrorist or other events, the GAO said."

10 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why not a satellite internet network, like GPS? by Samschnooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See title. Basically like the GPS, you can access the internet from anywhere using special technology. Security is obviously going to be the biggest issue however.

    This is not a technological problem. This is a problem with differing agencies fighting over turf. Agencies, I might add, that are all part of the Executive branch of Government. So, there is also a horrible lack of or incompetent leadership that is allowing this non-sense to happen. Apparently, the leader of this branch of government is out to lunch or just going to let his successor deal with it.

  2. Re:Why not a satellite internet network, like GPS? by sanpitch · · Score: 4, Informative

    See title. Basically like the GPS, you can access the internet from anywhere using special technology. Security is obviously going to be the biggest issue however.

    GPS is not a two-way system. It is transmit only, and you need to use some other system to get your data back 'up' to the satellite. This 'uplink' part of a satellite nework requires special antennas or lotsa power; it's not an option.

  3. Besides, satellite has too much latency. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

    Satellite internet systems are and have been available to the public. But it is usually used by people who are in rural areas, because of the signal delays (latency) involved. A packet has to get from your computer up to the satellite, relayed back to a ground station where it is put on the Internet, then the returning packets have to go up to the satellite, then back to your computer...

    I worked as a tech in a store that sold some of the first Satellite internet systems. It was broadband... the overall speed was good, and better than dialup (not may people had access to cable internet yet at the time). But that latency was a killer. Type in a URL and hit "go", and you waited. And waited. 3 seconds, 4 seconds, 6 seconds... then WHAM! Your page displayed all at once.

    It works, but it is not ideal.

  4. Good intentions, terrible idea. by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I first heard of the FCC's plans for a free wireless network, I was concerned that the filtering mandate might eventually be applied to adults as well as minors. I was accused of making a "slippery slope" argument, but after reading about other countries expanding their own filtering efforts after initially limiting the filters to illegal content, I am quite convinced that the FCC's plan is a very bad idea indeed. Filtered internet and the potential displacement of commercial alternatives? No thanks. I want my Internet without filters of any kind.

    Let the spectrum go to unlicensed devices and have a network grow organically around that.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  5. Damn... wrong story. by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Funny

    I should at least read the summary before posting, no?

    Apologies.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Damn... wrong story. by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      NO! You don't want to go down that path my friend! First it's just the summary, then maybe you read the first comment, sooner or later you RTFA and things go downhill from there

  6. There is already an interoperable network out ther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is already an interoperable network out there. It is called Amateur Radio. Millions of individuals are able to communicate around the world for recreation and when neccessary under disaster situations. The network can handle voice, image and data communications. Not only that it doesn't cost the goverment a dime.
    The problem with the goverment's effort, is that some salesman from a big corporation tried to sell them a gold plated overly complicated solution.
    A good example is the Coast Guard Auxiliary. The Auxiliary relies on amateur radio operators to provide emergency search and rescue support. The goverment's interoperability efforts resulted in regulations that prevented amateur participation unless the operators purchased special (read expensive)radios that supported the non standard specifications endorsed by the goverment.
    The simple solution is for the FCC to define the block of frequencies to be used for interoperable communications. Then the FCC needs to mandate standard comercially available modulation standards and insist that all radios used by the goverment include those frequencies and modes. This is not high technology here. Most of the equipment is available commercially to buisness and amateurs. Once thr frequencies and operating modes are set, the incident commander (or his communications officer) can assign and enforce operating frequencies as needed.

  7. This brings back memories ... by spisska · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow. I worked on IWN in a very limited capacity for one of the bidders back in early 2005. It was pretty clear then that the whole thing was going to be a huge cluster-fuck, but it was exciting to be a part of it for a while.

    If the process continued the way it was going when I left, it is almost surely the Feds' fault. They were demanding certain requirements that were nearly impossible to engineer and didn't make much sense anyway. And the whole RFP described technology in ways that made it clear that the government folks running it were completely out of touch with the technology.

    Essentially, the Feds wanted a device or devices that were a combination of tricorders, mobile phones, and walkie-talkies, as well as a national network to run them on.

    They envisioned devices and a network that would allow primarily federal agents but also emergency first-responders to call anyone a-la a phone, push-to-talk to anyone a-la a walkie-talkie, take mug shots/scan fingerprints and get an instant identification, and pull whatever data from whatever government sources. Nationally, instantly, wirelessly, seamlessly.

    I was just a lowly proposal writer and I suspected the whole thing was impossible. The engineers I worked with knew it was impossible, but it was really impressive to watch them try to build it anyway.

    For the $10 billion the government was offering, you could understand why.

    The bidder I was contracted to, via a small consultancy, wanted to call their team the National Wireless Alliance, or NWA. We thought that was a pretty ironic name for something to be used by cops. I suggested the Intra-Continental Emergency Telenetwork, or ICE-T. My buddy proposed the Wireless Universal Telephone And Network Group.

    Among the many things I learned was that the government, and the extremely big companies that go for $10B deals with them, are utterly humorless.

    But my hat was and is definitely off to the engineers, who were putting together some really great ideas.

  8. Re:Why not a satellite internet network, like GPS? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why the hell do they even need their own wireless network? if Homeland security wants anywhere wireless access, then they'll need to get in line like everyone else. either set up a public wireless broadband network that we can all use or stop whining. if they're worried about security they can use encryption.

    i mean, $195 million and 6 years of work and they still don't have a network up? that's pathetic. that money would have been better spent given to local governments to set up their own municipal wireless networks, which if a Homeland security agent happens to be in range of, they're free to use like everyone else.

    wireless broadband access is already slowly becoming a basic component of public infrastructure. it's something that benefits everyone, and increasingly vital to the technological progress of a society. the task of building such vital communications infrastructure should have been given to a science/technology-oriented government agency--something like Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (which would be more useful than the Homeland Security Department).

  9. Re:Why not a satellite internet network, like GPS? by schnell · · Score: 3, Informative

    They do make satellite phones, and they don't require a generator and a parabolic dish to use.

    True, but satellite networks present a lot of problems for networks like this that are used for government public safety/emergencies, such as:

    1. Higher latency than terrestrial radio (GEO satellites have ~500 ms of round trip latency and LEO satellites still have 100+ ms in most systems). Bad for real-time applications and a killer for push-to-talk voice in "shoot or don't shoot" scenarios like this might be used for
    2. With satellite you choose between big (2+ feet) high power (1-4 watt transmitter) dishes that can be used for broadband, or portable/handheld devices that can't squeak out much more than 9.6 kbps data rates
    3. You're talking about $150-$300M per satellite for a private (government only) network ... this is the cost structure that bankrupted Iridium and many other folks as well.

    There are lots of needs in the government emergency network space that make it more complicated and difficult than it seems at first blush ... of course that still doesn't entirely excuse the bungle that was made with IWN, though.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin