May 2015 Inbox
Friday, May 15, 2015 | Comments
Following are comments we’ve received from readers about recent online and print news and articles. If you’d like to comment on an article, email edit@RRMediaGroup.com.

In response to “FCC Sets Comment Dates for Non-Service-Initialized Phones Proceeding” from May 6

As a 9-1-1 professional for the past 12 years, I have seldom ever experienced a non-service-initialized (NSI) phone being used to make a legitimate 9-1-1 call for help in an emergency. What I have experienced are countless pocket dials, kids playing with a phone, crank 9-1-1 calls — all made from NSI phones. These calls tie up emergency lines and take the 9-1-1 dispatcher’s attention away from actual emergencies.

Unlike when someone accidently or intentionally dials 9-1-1 on a wired-line phone, we cannot call back or send an officer to the location of a NSI phone because it has no phone service and does not usually provide a GPS location. This makes finding an actual emergency more difficult, but then it also complicates investigations into perpetual NSI phone 9-1-1 calls of a malicious nature.

Jason Hoffman
Communications Supervisor
Carroll Communications Center
Carroll, Iowa


In response to “Lawmakers Question Effect on Public Safety of Closing 16 FCC Field Offices” from April 24

Editor: There seems to be an increasing misunderstanding on the difference between governing and serving. Case in point, the FCC’s pending decision to close most of the field offices as a result of budget cuts.

This makes no sense at all. First, this is not an operational decision. It is a decision affecting national security and the management of critical communications infrastructure — a decision that should be made by Congress, not administrative bureaucrats.

The field operations personnel of the FCC are among the hardest working and most efficient of all the federal agencies. They are already stretched to the limit, and now the proposal is being made to close the field offices with nothing in mind for an alternative.

From the simplistic viewpoint of an outsider, I have to wonder why the idea of increasing fees and enforcing fines has not been considered. I believe that most spectrum users would rather pay a few dollars more to retain essential services than lose what little enforcement capabilities that remain.

Burch Falkner
Falcon Wireless
Birmingham, Alabama


In response to “PTIG Publishes List of U.S. P25 Systems by State” from May 7

 

Editor:

Thanks for the listings. I do think it is somewhat confusing. For example, the state of Tennessee and Tennessee Advanced Communications Network (TACN) use both Phase 1 and Phase 2, depending on which agency you are with. The TACN does not show up in Phase 1 at all. I would think that is true for many agencies.

John Johnson
Public Safety Radio Communications Specialist
Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Editor:

The list for Connecticut is not even close to listing the number of Project 25 (P25) digital systems we have on the air in the state.

R. Barba

Editor’s Note: If you have corrections or additional information for the Project 25 (P25) list of systems by state, email director@project25.org.

 


In response to “FirstNet Releases Draft RFP, Approves Third Public Notice on Public-Safety Entity” from April 24

Editor:

Federal government sites within the U.S. seem to be forgotten; at least no mention is made of them in this article. Most if not all Department of Defense (DOD) installations cover wide areas and contain public-safety units such as police, fire and medical.

The Department of Energy (DOE) Nevada National Security Site where I work is the size of Rhode Island, and it is self contained. But at some time during an event, we would need to call in state or county public safety at which time the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) would be needed by units of federal DOD and civil agencies. I fear that the experience of previous grants and interoperability projects, the federal government entities were not allowed to participate in the planning stages, creating a gap in coverage and the ability for federal entities to be a part of the big picture.

Randy Minyard
Department of Energy
National Nuclear Security Administration
Spectrum Manager

 


Click here for the April 2015 Inbox.
Click here for the February/March 2015 Inbox.
Click here for the January 2015 Inbox.

 



 
 
Post a comment
Name: *
Email: *
Title: *
Comment: *
 

Comments

No Comments Submitted Yet

Be the first by using the form above to submit a comment!

Site Navigation

Close