What's the frequency, Rudy?

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

The tragedy in Minneapolis, like any disaster in America, provided another example of bravery and selflessness on behalf of everyday citizens and, especially, the nation's first responders. Fortunately, we haven't lived in the kind of country where disasters happen with extreme regularity. But when they do occur, there never seems to be a shortage of people willing to climb across wreckage or dive under a precarious pile of concrete.

Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion yesterday praised the rescue efforts and delivered a piece of unsurprising, but nevertheless gratifying news: The state's investment in interoperable communications equipment had passed its first real test.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the 9/11 legislation the Democrats succeeded in getting signed into law this week (no, I'm not talking about the infuriating Senate bill on wiretapping) was the part that will fund interoperable communications systems throughout the nation. The chaos in New Orleans during Katrina was a stark reminder that every minute emergency crews spend trying to get information can be the difference between life and death for a victim -- or themselves.

It is simply disgraceful that the federal government couldn't get the funding together for these communications systems until this week, six years after 9/11 and 14 years after the first attack on the World Trade Center. That's just another reason to wish for the premature departure of Alaska's corrupt Ted Stevens, who, as former Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, is as responsible for the delays as anybody in Washington.

It's a good thing that Minnesota didn't waste time waiting for the Republican Congress before implementing their radio plan. The results could have been much worse. Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

No responsibility is more fundamental and reflective of the nation's values than that of its Public Safety agencies. The citizens' legitimate expectation is that when their life or property is endangered, their government will respond. Vast federal, state, and local resources are committed to ensure this obligation is met. The effectiveness of police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, and other Public Safety officials is inextricably tied to communications capability. Today's communications environment, however, impedes meeting this responsibility. Rescuing victims of the World Trade Center bombing, who were caught between floors, was hindered when police officers could not communicate with fire fighters on the very next floor. Similarly, the inability to communicate among the agencies that had rushed to the Oklahoma City bombing site required resorting to runners to relay messages. The lack of sufficient, quality radio spectrum suitable for Public Safety use deters technological innovation, diminishes the responsiveness and effectiveness of Public Safety, and ultimately compromises the safety of the responding officers and of the very individuals seeking their help.

That's from the Final Report Of The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PDF), ironically presented to Congress on Sept. 11, 1996, five years to the day before New York had to deal with the exact same problem once again. The federal government had been slow to deal with this issue basically because of money and the revenue Congress expects to make auctioning off spectrum. The broadcast industry hasn't exactly rushed to relinquish the frequencies they will be giving back as the nation moves to high definition television, which is one of the reasons you haven't heard this issue discussed much on the brain vacuum.

It is likely that widely accepted use of commercial services may take longer than five years. The need for spectrum to provide interoperability is immediate, and the alternatives for short-term solutions are limited.

Public safety cannot afford to wait five or more years for spectrum relief assistance from the commercial sector as a solution to pressing interoperability problems today. By the time commercial services become more widely used for Public Safety applications, the amount of spectrum needed to accommodate yet-to-be-discovered applications will likely increase with those new requirements.

But Giuliani was willing to wait five years for the federal government to act. Nothing prevented the City or State of New York from working out their local communications problems themselves, especially in light of the attacks that had already been carried out there and the ample evidence of inadequacies. The Republicans like to say that we can all spend money better than the federal government, but the Republican mayor and governor of New York were perfectly willing to pass this job off to Washington. The results speak for themselves:

A NYPD helicopter pilot reported early, before the fall of the South Tower, that the North Tower was going to fall, but the fire chiefs did not hear of this. When the pilot saw that the South Tower was falling his announcement to police command was instant, and police command issued a forceful and robust order to evacuate the remaining building and to move all department vehicles to safety. Notwithstanding that this was a successful communication that resulted in the saving of many lives, the fire chiefs did not hear this order.

The command of the North Tower was covered with debris when the South Tower fell, and Chief Joseph Pfeifer, in complete darkness, gave the order, "All units in Tower One evacuate the building."

Just how many firefighters escaped in the twenty-nine minutes from Chief Pfeiffer's order is not certain, but we do know that one police officer, at least five Port Authority police officers, and 121 firefighters were killed when the second tower collapsed. Others were killed on the street, including four ESU 5 officers and a number of other firefighters who had successfully evacuated the building. -- 9/11 testimony of Dennis Smith, June 19, 2004 (PDF)

We ask these brave men and women to risk their lives when the unimaginable happens. Is it too much to ask that they have the proper equipment to do the job? Giuliani and the superficial media may believe that he owns 9/11, but he wasn't willing to own the responsibility of providing for his own first responders. If he and his former GOP governor and administration want to own 9/11, they can start by accepting responsibility for the lack of effective communications systems.

Giuliani says he knows more about the threat of terrorism than anybody. I'd be willing to bet every single firefighter in New York (and Minneapolis) has forgotten more than he'll ever know.

Rudy's no hero

Atrios caught this sentence in today's speech by John McCain:

McCain Takes it to Rudy

His speech today:

They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency.

Heckuva job, Rudy.

Free lifetime subscription to Eschaton for the first mainstream media person who picks up on that.

I just saw McCain deliver that line on MSNBC, for what that's worth.

But I link to this because this subject is one that is personal to DB. Longtime readers of this blog will remember that DB wrote furiously on the topic (here, here, here, here, here and here) when there was time for Congress to rectify the problem back in 2005, which still would have been close to two decades too late.

I won't be real happy if John McCain is president (and I was delighted to see Jon Stewart shoot down all his talking points last night), but I would be dishonest if I didn't give him high marks on this particular issue.

You see, 18 days ago, April 7, 2007, would have been the deadline for all the frequencies our first responders need to become available to them. At least it would have if Sen. Ted Stevens' Commerce Committee hadn't defeated McCain's amendment (5-17) back on Oct. 20, 2005. He also introduced an amendment to the entire Senate two weeks later and that, too, was defeated, 60-39.

McCain isn't just taking pot shots at Rudy. He's got the credentials on this issue. He kept fighting for it in the wake of Katrina:

"Let’s remember that Congress provided additional spectrum for first responders in the Telecommunications Act of 1996," said McCain. "So, after spending millions of dollars in funding and additional spectrum for our nation’s first responders why aren't we better off than we were on 9/11 when it comes to interoperable communications? Because the spectrum Congress provided to first responders in 1996 is being held hostage by television broadcasters even though broadcasters have been given new spectrum."

But nothing prevented the City of New York from working on its own to solve the problems they encountered at the first World Trade Center bombing. When I first started to write about this travesty, I began it with this quote:

No responsibility is more fundamental and reflective of the nation's values than that of its Public Safety agencies. The citizens' legitimate expectation is that when their life or property is endangered, their government will respond. Vast federal, state, and local resources are committed to ensure this obligation is met. The effectiveness of police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, and other Public Safety officials is inextricably tied to communications capability. Today's communications environment, however, impedes meeting this responsibility. Rescuing victims of the World Trade Center bombing, who were caught between floors, was hindered when police officers could not communicate with fire fighters on the very next floor. Similarly, the inability to communicate among the agencies that had rushed to the Oklahoma City bombing site required resorting to runners to relay messages. The lack of sufficient, quality radio spectrum suitable for Public Safety use deters technological innovation, diminishes the responsiveness and effectiveness of Public Safety, and ultimately compromises the safety of the responding officers and of the very individuals seeking their help.

That is from Sept. 11 -- 1996. It is the introduction to the Final Report Of The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PDF). Five years later, our first responders were in the exact same predicament. Rudy was Mayor from Jan. 1, 1994 - Dec. 31, 2001.

So when Rudy walks around boasting about his heroism on 9/11, remember this:

A NYPD helicopter pilot reported early, before the fall of the South Tower, that the North Tower was going to fall, but the fire chiefs did not hear of this. When the pilot saw that the South Tower was falling his announcement to police command was instant, and police command issued a forceful and robust order to evacuate the remaining building and to move all department vehicles to safety. Notwithstanding that this was a successful communication that resulted in the saving of many lives, the fire chiefs did not hear this order.

The command of the North Tower was covered with debris when the South Tower fell, and Chief Joseph Pfeifer, in complete darkness, gave the order, "All units in Tower One evacuate the building."

Just how many firefighters escaped in the twenty-nine minutes from Chief Pfeiffer's order is not certain, but we do know that one police officer, at least five Port Authority police officers, and 121 firefighters were killed when the second tower collapsed. Others were killed on the street, including four ESU 5 officers and a number of other firefighters who had successfully evacuated the building. -- 9/11 testimony of Dennis Smith, June 19, 2004

F: Shame on you, Senator Stevens

Note: This is Part V of a short series on the issue of the failure of our representatives in Washington to provide our first responders with the communications technology necessary to save lives. Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV.

"This conference report is another in a series of important steps to freeing up the necessary spectrum for our nation's first responders. By providing our emergency response entities and broadcasters with a date certain for the digital transition, our first responders can move forward in ensuring that critical communication infrastructure is in place in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack." -- Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, Dec. 21, 2005

That "date certain" is now set for Feb. 17, 2009, which means that you shouldn't expect a police officer in your neighborhood to be able to warn a firefighter of potential danger until roughly Feb. 17, 2012.

DB gives Stevens the title of Worst Senator in Washington for his shameful work in stalling this transition until the most money could be made off the frequencies and for the corporations with the most to gain from the transition.

Also adding to his title are the facts that he was one of the nine Senators to vote for torture and, of course, his pathetic and unethical attempts to turn the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge into a cash register:

"This is one of the most unpatriotic acts ever attempted by an elected official -- tantamount to treason," said Brian Moore, legislative director for the Alaska Wilderness League. "It's Ted Stevens denying the troops food, funding, ammunition -- everything they need."

As reported here earlier, Stevens claimed that the public safety agencies needed three years to be ready to use these frequencies, so 2009 is just fine. He also said that it had to be 2009 in order to get the money, from auctions, needed to help people pay for digital tuners. But those auction revenues are also going to be used to buy the emergency equipment. So that three years of preparation won't even begin until 2009. [Edit: States may begin to apply for loans against some of those revenues, but there is still no chance of beginning the implementation of these systems until the bandwidth is available.] And there's no chance that our first responders are going to be ignoring the life-and-death situations they face every day so they can start thinking about the radios they won't be getting for another three years.

A Senator who swindled taxpayer money for a bridge to nowhere, in a state ranked in the bottom three in population and likely to never in our lifetimes experience a disaster like Katrina or attack like 9/11, has spearheaded the delays that caused our government to receive a much-deserved 'F' from the 9/11 Commissioners.

Go ahead, Stevens, resign from the Senate. Do America a favor.

Since it seems like a lost cause at this point, DB will conclude this series without getting into the actions on the House side... Joe Barton's efforts and the influence of lobbyists like the National Association of Broadcasters.

But let it be known that in the next disaster -- which will inevitably occur -- any lives that are lost because of a lack of communications will be the true cost of this legislation. Every dollar earned in the auctions, every profit margin increased by these corporations... none of it is worth the life of a single first responder.

F: Do I hear $30 billion?

Note: This is Part IV of a short series on the issue of the failure of our representatives in Washington to provide our first responders with the communications technology necessary to save lives. Part I | Part II | Part III.

We've talked for years about the importance of getting new spectrum in the hands of our first responders. But today that priority was a casualty of the clout that powerful interests wield in Congress and a process driven by gimmicks aimed at making a fiscally irresponsible budget more palatable.-- Senator John Kerry, Oct. 20, 2005, after Senator John McCain's proposal to expedite the spectrum transition was defeated

There is a big component in this story that DB has only mentioned in passing -- the auction.

While the federal government has designated some of the frequencies in the 700 MHz band for our first responders, the rest will be put up for auction. One of the reasons this part of the spectrum will be so good for emergency services is that broadcasts at 700 MHz can penetrate walls easily. This also makes it ideal for wireless broadband or WiMax. The government expects these auctions to bring in tens of billions of dollars. Some independent analysts suggest as much as $30 billion or more.

The Senate has set an auction date of Jan. 2009, preceding the April 7, 2009 deadline they set for the relinquishing of those frequencies to the public. The House deadline is Dec. 31, 2008 and the auction date they set is Jan. 7, 2008.

Keep this in mind as we take a look at the legislation.

First, let's look at some of the people who are pushing for a 2009 deadline. Here's FCC Chairman (and son of the former Secretary of State) Michael K. Powell, testifying before the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Sept. 8 2004.

Of course, questions will be asked about what is the "right" hard deadline for the transition. In choosing 2009 as a target date for our plan, we focused on three potential benefits. First, because the Commission's tuner mandate becomes fully effective on July 1, 2007, having a deadline of 2009 will add millions more digital sets to the marketplace before analog signals are turned off. The tuner mandate and other market forces will also further drive down the costs of digital-to-analog converters during that time for those households still relying on analog broadcast television.

Further, a 2009 deadline would provide time to prepare the public on the impending end of the transition so they could take steps to prepare themselves in the natural course of replacing old sets.

Finally, under the current 85 percent statutory test, the added DTV 8 sets with tuners and the expansion of DBS local-into-local markets will help ensure that most of the country meets the 85% threshold, providing for a nationwide end to the transition rather than a piecemeal result. The ultimate benefit of the 2009 deadline, in conjunction with steps we already have taken, will be to reduce to a minimum the number of consumers reliant on analog broadcast television.

Whenever the transition ends, however, we recognize that there will be consumers that still tune into analog over-the-air television.

We've already addressed his first point. Sure, "a deadline of 2009 will add millions more digital sets" but so will a deadline of 2008, or (remember this testimony is from 2004) so would 2007. The same goes for his second point. How long does a minority of TV watchers need to get a gadget? Four or five years? How many first responders and disaster victims need to die before their needs outweigh the TV viewers who would be surprised by the need for a gadget subsidized by the American taxpayer? His third point doesn't seem to support 2009 in particular, just the need for a transition from analog to digital, a goal he concedes will not be fully met.

In short, no reason given by the FCC for choosing 2009 over an earlier date outweighs the needs of our public safety agencies. None.

On Oct. 20, 2005, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment that would have pushed the Senate's deadline up to April 7, 2007, but it was defeated 5-17 by the Commerce Committee. He introduced a 2008 amendment to the full Senate on Nov. 3 and it was defeated, 60-39.

Here's what our friend Ted Stevens said in arguing against McCain's amendment:

Mr. President, this amendment would close off the analog broadcasting too close to the auction of spectrum. We currently have an April 2009 date. The auction date is January of 2009. It is just too close together. The leases cannot be processed. There is no way those auction proceeds can be available until licenses are issued. This amendment would end analog broadcasts before the funds are available for the converter box fund or the translator conversion fund authorized by S. 1932. We need help in this transition. The amendment makes spectrum available to public safety groups before they can put it to use because we are informed public safety groups must have at least 3 years to prepare for the use of spectrum.

We are going to get them the spectrum. They will not be able to use it until we have the money to bring about the transition. I believe our whole committee should oppose this amendment.

DB thinks Stevens was confused because his dates do not make sense at all. He seems to be complaining that the dates are already "too close" together. McCain's amendment would have set the deadline ahead by two years. How would this be "too close" to the auction date? The House had no problem setting an auction date after the transition deadline.

Also, the auction date is an arbitrary date set by the Senate. It's not Halley's comet. They could change it if they wanted, which also counters his next point, that the auction funds would come in after the subsidies for the consumer tuners. And perhaps if the subsidies weren't an outrageous $3 billion for consumers (to hand over to digital tuner manufacturers, plus $200 million for the broadcasters) and the Congress wasn't hell-bent on cutting taxes for the wealthy, then coming up with a reasonable subsidy before receiving a windfall of tens of billions from the auction wouldn't be too much of a sacrifice for Congress to make for the people who risk their lives to protect us from disaster.

Lastly, Stevens says that it will take three years before they can use the technology. This is the most offensive distortion of all. Our first responders won't be able to spend any time implementing the new communications systems until they can use the frequencies. Call your state's firefighters association and ask them if they have time to even think about what technology they'll be using in three years. These groups are worrying about how to protect the shrinking budgets they have right now. If Stevens is correct about the three years, then 2009 won't be when they start using the system. It will be 2012.

And if they don't get the funds to pay for the set-top tuners until the auction in 2009, how in the world can our first responders start preparing to use their new gear? The funds for that equipment come from the same auction as the $3.2 billion for the tuners and broadcasters. Outrageous. [Edit: States can begin to apply for loans against those funds in October 2006. States must pay at least 20% of the cost of implementation.]

Remember, Congress and the Senate will determine the auction date. If they have a problem with the date, if they need the funds sooner, they can change it. The question is why don't they want to change the auction date? The answer? Money.

You see, the government is already auctioning off 90 MHz beginning in 2006. This is important because the Congressional Budget Office recommends the 2009 date for the 700 MHz band (all emphasis mine):

CBO estimates that the proceeds from the auction of the 60 megahertz now used by broadcasters would most likely total between $10 billion and $15 billion, with an expected value of about $12.5 billion. But offering the wireless industry a total of 150 megahertz within a two- or three-year time period, would probably result in lower bids in the 90 megahertz auction that will take place under current law.

In other words, waiting until 2009 will be more profitable. Auctioning the 700 MHz band sooner will hurt profits expected from the auctions already in the works. Our public safely and national security have to wait because Congress doesn't want to lose money.

And it's not even a sure thing. Here's what the CBO said in a report on the exact same topic in 1999 (all emphasis mine):

The overall effect of the transition's lasting beyond 2006 is that some of the anticipated benefits from the move to digital TV may not be available as originally planned. Of particular significance for policymakers is that receipts from the scheduled auctions of licenses for the use of spectrum formerly available for analog broadcasting are likely to be lower. Each year of delay expected in freeing up those frequencies in a given market reduces a potential bidder's valuation of the license by the bidder's annual cost of funds. For example, if bidders desired a 10 percent rate of return on their investment, a one-year delay in receiving use of the spectrum would reduce what they were willing to pay for their license by about 10 percent (although the correspondence is not always exact).

The entire thing is a gamble and in the balance are the people who make up America's most important line of defense, our first responders.

DB will take a closer look at the House bills and the politicians and lobbyists involved in this mess in the next installment. Unfortunately, that won't be for a few days as DB has a business trip planned (gotta work).

In the meantime, any help would be welcome. This is the hardest part... figuring out which corporations profit the most and which politicians care the most about those companies. It is clear that they care more about the money than about the lives of our first responders.

F: Deadlines

Note: This is Part III of a short series on the issue of the failure of our representatives in Washington to provide our first responders with the communications technology necessary to save lives. Part I | Part II | Part IV.

LEE HAMILTON: Absolutely. This is a no-brainer. From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at Katrina. They still cannot do it. And we think this is... must be urgently considered and approved. Now, that's not the only problem.

TIM RUSSERT: Will it get fixed this week?

MR. HAMILTON: I don't know.

TOM KEAN: No.

MR. HAMILTON: It's a close call.

MR. KEAN: No, it's not...

MR. HAMILTON: We don't know.

MR. KEAN: It's not going to be fixed this week because the best hope we have is a bill that fixes it by '09.

-- Chair and vice chair of the September 11 Commission, Republican Tom Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, on Meet the Press, Dec. 4, 2005

Before our first responders have the communication tools they need to protect themselves and American citizens in times of crisis, they will need equipment and training. It will probably take years for emergency service agencies across the country to get this equipment and even longer to train officers to use it and finally implement its usage.

According to the McKinsey Report, issued in August 2002 on behalf of the NYFD, UHF (ultra-high frequency) radios purchased by the department in 1999 had yet to be put into use (although an unsuccessful attempt had been made). It is no small task to introduce completely new technology, improvement though it may be, to large organizations who are involved in a never-ending battle to save people from disasters and tragedies.

But before our public safety agencies can even begin to think about this multi-year process of implementing new technology, they need the frequencies upon which they will be transmitting their communications. Those frequencies are in the 700 MHz band of the broadcast spectrum and they are currently occupied by television stations.

Our government, if it comes through at all, will ask us to wait until 2009 for that process to begin. It could be years after that before a firefighter can talk to a police officer responding to the same emergency. This is a country that landed a man on the moon only eight years after President Kennedy challenged us to do it. Despite the worst terror attacks in our nation's history, it will take eight years before our first responders even have a chance to start solving their communications problems. As far as DB is concerned, this is outrageous.

What are the obstacles that have prevented this transition from taking place already?

• There are thousands of television stations in America. Until recently, many were broadcasting exclusively in the 700 MHz band. Today, most stations broadcast both an analog signal and a digital signal in a different part of the spectrum. Converting a television station from analog to digital is an expensive proposition, costing millions of dollars and, for many small stations, more money than they make in years, maybe in over a decade. In addition to the station itself, the repeaters in the area that catch the broadcast, amplify it and send it back out to cover a wider range... all these repeaters need to be upgraded as well. For many of these stations, the end result of the upgrade will be that they spent millions of dollars just to be able to continue broadcasting the same shows with the same revenues from the same advertisers.
  
  
• There are millions of televisions that cannot receive DTV broadcasts without additional hardware. Simply turning off the 700 MHz band broadcasts would mean that millions of households, mostly lower-income families, would lose access to those stations.
  

DB would like to point out here, before discussing why these obstacles have been essentially overcome already, that both are about money. Money that the broadcasters would have to spend. Money that television viewers would have to spend... theoretically. We're talking about money as we talk about why our first responders have been forced to wait.

Let's take a look at the first obstacle -- thousands of stations that need to be switched to DTV. As of today, Dec. 10, 2005, there are 1,525 stations in 211 markets that are on record as delivering broadcasts in DTV.

Although Motorola is one of the companies with the most to gain by the transition to DTV (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, AT&T and others will be big winners, too), their study, "700 MHz TV Clearing and its Impact on TV Viewership," says the following:

First, only 75 stations, equaling 5% of the 1500 U.S. TV stations, impact public safety's availability of its 700 MHz band spectrum. Second, Motorola's analysis of independent television industry data shows that on average, only 14% of the TV households who have the option to view these stations actually do so at all and that of those viewing, 82% watch by cable. This means that, on average, only 3% of the TV households within these stations' coverage areas tune to these stations over-the-air sometime during an average week. Therefore, the public interest benefits of clearing the 700 MHz spectrum for public safety access nationwide no later than December 31, 2006, far outweigh those of allowing it to stay encumbered by television.

That report was issued in February 2004. Those numbers have to be even lower today. In other words, the television stations will be ready to go all digital long before 2009. You could argue that they are ready right now.

Second -- the consumers and their outdated televisions. The Government Accountability Office recently estimated that there are 21 million households relying on outdated televisions. As noted by Motorola, there are relatively few viewers who will be impacted by the change. Just by virtue of a having a hard deadline, those consumers will be motivated to acquire a digital tuner, so the demand will be higher and manufacturers will have an incentive to develop better technology.

These numbers have no choice but to get even lower. The FCC is already requiring (since July 2005) that all 35-inch and higher TVs sold in America (and 50% of 25-inch-plus) have a built-in digital tuner and, since March 2006, that all 25- to 35-inch TVs. Starting March 1, 2007, the you will not be able to buy a new 13-inch TV without one. That's in three and a half months.

A Joint Economic Committee study, "The Transition to Digital Television: Setting a Hard Date Benefits Society," issued in October, adds that many of the older televisions might be used exclusively for DVD's or video games. It also makes the following point:

In previous decades, owners of Beta video players and 8-track tape players discovered that they could no longer purchase content for their machines because manufacturers of content had switched to alternative formats. Over the past decade, owners of phonograph record and cassette collections have found it difficult to purchase the equipment needed to listen to them. In none of these cases was there public pressure for either the industry or Congress to preserve the worth of past purchases.

Let's do the math. A digital tuner, manufactured in the numbers that would be required, will cost around $50 a unit. Even if every one of those 21 million estimated households needed to buy one, that would cost $1.05 billion. The real number is probably half of that.

The Senate has already passed legislation (S.1932 Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005), courtesy of Alaska "Bridge-to-Nowhere" Republican Ted Stevens, that would dole out $3 billion of taxpayer money so that everybody can get a DTV tuner. Think about that for a minute... $3 billion. The bill would take any of that $3 billion not spent and add it to the $1.25 billion devoted to first responders, but that whopping excess could have been aimed for that purpose to begin with. And the bill provides $200 million for the remaining low-power broadcast stations to get up to date with DTV. Let's face it, whether the money goes to the broadcasters or the companies making the tuners, Washington is making sure that we all take care of them.

So, as far as DB is concerned, there is absolutely no reason to say that we need to wait any longer to begin the transition.

So why do we need to wait until 2009? In the next installment, DB will discuss the auction.

Part IV is here.

F: Incommunicado

Note: This is Part II of a short series on the issue of the failure of our representatives in Washington to provide our first responders with the communications technology necessary to save lives. Part I | Part III | Part IV.

A NYPD helicopter pilot reported early, before the fall of the South Tower, that the North Tower was going to fall, but the fire chiefs did not hear of this. When the pilot saw that the South Tower was falling his announcement to police command was instant, and police command issued a forceful and robust order to evacuate the remaining building and to move all department vehicles to safety. Notwithstanding that this was a successful communication that resulted in the saving of many lives, the fire chiefs did not hear this order.

The command of the North Tower was covered with debris when the South Tower fell, and Chief Joseph Pfeifer, in complete darkness, gave the order, "All units in Tower One evacuate the building."

Just how many firefighters escaped in the twenty-nine minutes from Chief Pfeiffer's order is not certain, but we do know that one police officer, at least five Port Authority police officers, and 121 firefighters were killed when the second tower collapsed. Others were killed on the street, including four ESU 5 officers and a number of other firefighters who had successfully evacuated the building. -- 9/11 testimony of Dennis Smith, June 19, 2004

The 9/11 Commissioners Monday gave our government an 'F' for its lack of progress in improving the communications capabilities of our first responders. What exactly is the problem the government needs to be addressing and what are the recommended solutions?

The problems are, in a nutshell:

• The radio systems that different agencies use are not "interoperable." If the police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and other agencies all arrive at the scene of a catastrophe, they cannot speak directly to one another through the radios they are carrying. They have to be routed through other systems, costing them precious time. The astronauts in the space station have a more direct line of communication with NASA than a firefighter has with a police helicopter 100 feet above his head.
  
  
• The frequencies that are used by these public safety agencies are too limited to deliver the valuable information that your iPod can display. We always see television shows where the police beam satellite photos, X-rays, bomb diagrams, etc... to officers on the scene or in an impressive "war room" lined with flat-panel displays. The reality is that the first responders, who selflessly run into horrific situations to protect us, don't have the kind of bandwidth to move more than their voices.
  
  
• The frequencies devoted to the first responders are not ideal for mission-critical applications. What could be more mission-critical than life-or-death situations like accidents, terror threats or natural disasters? And yet, the frequencies that we give to the people upon whom we depend to risk everything for us are inadequate for the task. In a society in which average citizens consider switching cell phone carriers if they cannot make dinner plans on the elevator, it is a travesty that our first responders are out of touch with each other in the middle of dire situations. The frequencies they use are in "crowded" areas of the broadcast spectrum and there is often interference, especially in urban areas.
  

Bottom line: Our first responders need a bigger and better slice of the broadcast spectrum and more advanced equipment in order to take advantage of that bandwidth.

What is the spectrum?

If you go on a picnic and take an AM/FM radio to tune in your favorite station, you are pulling radio waves out of the air. The rate at which a wave moves in a single cycle (up, then down, then back up again) is what is called the "frequency." When you tune your radio to a particular station, you're pulling waves that correspond to that station's assigned frequency. The station licenses use of that frequency from the government. That is because all the frequencies in the nation's airspace belong to the public.

Here are some maps of the nation's frequency assignments. Looking at those maps, you can see that there's not a great deal that isn't designated for something already.

The important frequencies for this discussion are in the 700 MHz band of the spectrum, the area in which television stations have been broadcasting for years. Because of innovations in DTV, or Digital Television, stations are also broadcasting on frequencies that have been allocated for that purpose. Over 1,500 stations are currently broadcasting in both analog and digital, at a large expense to them. DB should also point out here that the procedures and effort involved in spectrum reassignment by the government are not trivial and a tremendous amount of work went into devising a way to assign these additional frequencies.

Congress passed laws requiring television stations to relinquish their control of frequencies in the 700 MHz band, but only when enough consumers (85%) in a given area have the capability to receive DTV broadcasts. Once they have been returned to the public, some of the old TV frequencies in this range can be used by public safety agencies.

Here's one of the sticky points: There are millions of televisions that cannot receive DTV broadcasts. If you have cable TV or a satellite, that probably doesn't matter because the box that your cable company provides does all the tuning and digital conversion before passing the picture and sound to your television. If you don't subscribe to cable and just have a pair of "rabbit ears" on top of your TV, you are pulling the broadcast from the 700 MHz band and your TV will go dark when the station stops broadcasting analog and only broadcasts digital. At that point, you will need to get a DTV tuner for your television, a new television with a DTV tuner, or you will need to subscribe to cable or satellite and use their tuner.

All the debates about this issue have to do with these 700 MHz band frequencies. They will eventually be relinquished by the television broadcasters. When that happens, the government will immediately give some of them to the public safety agencies (who will then require addition time, years even, before they have the equipment and training to use them). Other frequencies in this band will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The government expects to make tens of billions of dollars from these auctions.

DB thinks the first responders should have these frequencies as soon as possible. So do the 9/11 Commissioners. So did the authors of the Final Report Of The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PDF), issued on (note the date) Sept. 11, 1996:

In the short term (within 5 years), approximately 25 MHz of new Public Safety allocations are needed. The present shortages can be addressed by making part of the spectrum presently used for television broadcast channels 60-69 available as soon as possible.

The reason the 9/11 Commissioners gave the government its 'F' is that a hard date for giving up the 700 MHz band has still not been mandated. There is legislation up for a vote right now that would set the date in 2009.

The next post here will be about that deadline. Why 2009? Why not sooner? What is holding it up? Who says we need more time? Who in Washington has proposed a sooner deadline? Who killed that proposal?

DB has been looking into the answers for those questions and could use some help. So far, the picture that's coming into focus isn't pretty.

Part III is here.

F: Broken Promises

No responsibility is more fundamental and reflective of the nation's values than that of its Public Safety agencies. The citizens' legitimate expectation is that when their life or property is endangered, their government will respond. Vast federal, state, and local resources are committed to ensure this obligation is met. The effectiveness of police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, and other Public Safety officials is inextricably tied to communications capability. Today's communications environment, however, impedes meeting this responsibility. Rescuing victims of the World Trade Center bombing, who were caught between floors, was hindered when police officers could not communicate with fire fighters on the very next floor. Similarly, the inability to communicate among the agencies that had rushed to the Oklahoma City bombing site required resorting to runners to relay messages. The lack of sufficient, quality radio spectrum suitable for Public Safety use deters technological innovation, diminishes the responsiveness and effectiveness of Public Safety, and ultimately compromises the safety of the responding officers and of the very individuals seeking their help.

In the past five years, America has not done a spectacular job of helping those among us who need help the most. DB has found that, in general, advocacy on their behalf is often met with a suggestion that they "help themselves." We see this attitude manifested in tax cuts for the wealthy and federal aid cuts for students. We see it in the slashing of funds for school lunches and food stamps. We see it in New Orleans.

But there is one group of people who needs help and not a soul among us can say they either can or should solve their own problems. Nobody can say they don't take personal responsibility for their actions. And absolutely nobody, not a single person, can say that what they do isn't vital to our existence.

DB is talking about the firefighters, who run into burning skyscrapers. Police, who wade through disease-infested flood waters to look for victims. DB's talking about our first responders, the people upon whom we can always count to step up to the challenges we face as a nation when disaster's course is inevitably cast.

The 'F' our government earned Monday for the lack of motion on the issue of communications for our first responders was labeled a "scandal" by the 9/11 Commissioners. DB objects to the word. Americans are used to scandals in Washington.

This 'F' is no scandal. It is a complete dereliction of duty by our representatives in Washington and a betrayal by the government in its responsibilities to our first responders. It is quite simply a breach of a sacred promise by the president: a vow to keep America safe after 9/11.

Every talking head Monday mentioned the failing grades. The word "communications" was bandied about in a torrent of other topics. But did anybody watching the news hear an explanation from any member of the government or media as to why the police cannot communicate with the firefighters at the same location? Did anybody explain why there have been delays in fixing the problem or for how long the possible solutions have been discussed?

All we heard is that our first responders -- from here on out, DB will refer to them as "heroes" because that is what they are -- will not get the "frequencies" they need to communicate until 2009. We heard groans because it seems like we have lost our sense of urgency... it seems like a long time after Sept. 11, 2001.

The reality is, however, that this problem did not begin on Sept. 11, 2001. That quote at the beginning of this post is from Sept. 11, 1996.

It is the introduction to the Final Report Of The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PDF), presented to the FCC five years to the day before our lives changed forever and containing conclusions such as the following (emphasis mine):

This report identifies a number of approaches that can provide Public Safety with enhanced communications capabilities — higher quality transmission, access to emerging technologies, and availability of a broader range of services — immediately and in the long term. The first is allocation of additional spectrum for Public Safety. This entails reallocating spectrum from other uses and/or adding Public Safety uses to already allocated bands through sharing.

...

It is likely that widely accepted use of commercial services may take longer than five years. The need for spectrum to provide interoperability is immediate, and the alternatives for short-term solutions are limited.

Public safety cannot afford to wait five or more years for spectrum relief assistance from the commercial sector as a solution to pressing interoperability problems today. By the time commercial services become more widely used for Public Safety applications, the amount of spectrum needed to accommodate yet-to-be-discovered applications will likely increase with those new requirements.

The infuriating truth is that the delays have less to do with the lack of urgency that undoubtedly exists in Washington and more to do with avarice.

Avarice from the corporations that have resisted and continue to resist the relinquishing of publicly-owned frequencies. Avarice from our representatives in Washington, who are deliberately stalling in the hopes that these frequencies they intend to auction off to the highest bidder might be worth more money in 2009 than in 2007.

The technology and laws are quite complicated. The reason for the delays is that simple.

There will be times in the future, as there have in the past, when lives will be lost, heroes will die, because our government is more interested in profits than in its solemn duty to protect us. The reason we do not turn on the news and hear about the lobbyists who are fighting to stall the handing over of those frequencies is that it is the broadcasters and cable companies themselves who are resisting the transition. Politicians are not eager to engage in a battle with the corporations who control the television and radio stations that broadcast to their constituents. It is our national interest that is sacrificed.

The next few posts here will all be about this topic. DB will try to explain the basics of the technological challenges and the solutions that have been proposed. We will discuss the billions of dollars that are being promised and projected. We will discuss the reasons that have been given for the 2009 date and whether any of those reasons hold up to scrutiny. We will also discuss the interest groups, politicians and government agencies involved in this sorry affair.

DB will also ask for help... help getting information and help motivating Senators and Congressional Representatives who have cast votes on this issue and will cast more. There are associations who represent our heroes and there may be things you can do to help them. Some of these groups have to fight so hard to defend their budgets today that they can't even consider fighting big battles for equipment they won't get for several years.

DB is no expert in this arena. There is a tremendous amount that is unknown to this blogger and very few people DB has spoken to have been forthcoming. Many seem to be as in the dark as DB was when beginning this quest for answers. There will be big blanks that someone else can fill in. There will also be some mistakes here and when they are pointed out, DB will correct them if possible.

DB does not pretend to be the sole possessor of truth and knowledge. This endeavor began with a simple question: What is possibly holding things up and why isn't anybody talking about it? Hopefully this blog will get some visitors with some real insight.

One thing is clear: There are powerful people who obviously don't want a national conversation about any of this. But these are important questions and it is apparently up to those of us on the Internet and in the public square to get to the bottom of this problem and hold our government accountable. Our lives, quite frankly, depend on it.

Part II can be found here.

Failing America

DB is a little thin on posting right now. Working to get to the bottom of why the 9/11 Commissioners gave the government one of its F's this week.

The issue behind all the F's seems to be money. Congress is putting money ahead of lives. Some of the ineffectiveness of the government in this regard is a basic reluctance to spend, compounded by a disappointing lack of urgency.

The particular failure this blogger is considering seems to stem from avarice. It is difficult for someone as admittedly out of the loop and far from Washington as DB to know all the facts. But in this case, there are practically no obvious specific causes for the failure and many on the Hill who are fighting to solve the problem seem unwilling to identify the forces working against them. The few who have pointed fingers really haven't made the case.

At some point in the near future, DB will feel confident enough to shine a light on this issue, or make a plea for help from the online community. It seems clear now that there will be no help from the MSM.