Former FCC Chief's Emergency Broadband Plan An alternative to the solution proposed by Cyren Call Last month, we mentioned a controversial plan by Cyren Call to stuff a significant amount of spectrum into a public trust, then use it to construct a national broadband emergency network consisting of 37,000 "disaster-proof" (a term that generated laughter among resident techs) transmitter towers. Paul Kapustka at GigaOM writes about another such proposal by former FCC Chief Reed Hundt (see Frontline Wireless), though this one would be combined with an open-access, public-private 4G offering that would offer wholesale bandwidth as well. It wouldn't dodge the auction process like Cyren Call's proposal, but it would require auction winners to use the spectrum for emergency broadband services.
|
  P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | ITs not hard you just need to put them 70 miles under the ground and when the disaster is over they can just pop out of the ground
seriously you would just need to store the EQ to build or erect these towers, you dont have to have the towers right out in the open.
then 95% of the disasters that could occur would not effect the tower. if built right it would not take long to erect the towers either.
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
|  | | | Re: ITs not hard they could use C.O.W. systems (cell on wheels) which include a pop-up tower and a trailer containing the gear. | |
| |  nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by P Ness:you just need to put them 70 miles under the ground and when the disaster is over they can just pop out of the ground seriously you would just need to store the EQ to build or erect these towers, you dont have to have the towers right out in the open. then 95% of the disasters that could occur would not effect the tower. if built right it would not take long to erect the towers either. Unless all the people with the expertise to erect the towers are displaced (or can't reach the cached supplies).
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | So, what are you using these frequencies for during the 99.9% of the time when there is no need for an emergency network? There are no towers up.
The whole point of this network is to have it up and running all the time, to be taken over for critical communications when other networks are unavailable. It would take weeks to deploy, erect and activate a system such as you describe, far too late to do any good.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | Re: ITs not hard said by RadioDoc:So, what are you using these frequencies for during the 99.9% of the time when there is no need for an emergency network? There are no towers up. The whole point of this network is to have it up and running all the time, to be taken over for critical communications when other networks are unavailable. It would take weeks to deploy, erect and activate a system such as you describe, far too late to do any good. not hard, if planned right as said before you could have mobile trucks and platforms...
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
| | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: ITs not hard You missed the point: This is supposed to be used all the time, not just for "emergencies".
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | Re: ITs not hard "to construct a national broadband emergency network "
well they are silly to try to merge the two i was talking about a true "emergency" network only to be used in emergency cases
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
|
| |  whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:8 | said by RadioDoc:So, what are you using these frequencies for during the 99.9% of the time when there is no need for an emergency network? Read between the lines.
The real point of this idea, is to provide a way for communications companies to be able to erect 37,000 towers around the United States; and because they are for the 'emergency network, nimby localities will not be able to complain about the presence of these towers. The 99.999% of the time, the communications companies will use this system for commercial profit, without the financial disadvantage of lawsuits, hearings, environmental studies, or zoning problems.
The goal, as are most of the goals of this administration, are to make $$$$, while subdueing the public with tales of their acts being for 'the greater good'. | |
|
 taoChaos ImpendsPremium
join:2000-12-03
Lansing, MI | WTF? I am probably shouting into the wind here, but there exist radio technologies that are rather nuke proof just sitting out there. I consider that when all hell breaks loose, having a cell phone, or a Internet connection, is at the absolute bottom of considerations. Look at the mess of Katrina and know that this is simply a money grab from feds. | |
| | | i like These are good ideas. | |
|
| |
|
|
