backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Apr 17 at 2:02 PM

New analysis by Congress takes a second look at why the public safety spectrum failed to sell during the recent auction and what might be done to help

On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications met to discuss various issues, chiefly revolving around the recent FCC's 700 MHz spectrum auction.  The committee discussed whether the failure to sell the D-block -- the public safety section -- constituted a failure for the entire auction.

The general consensus reached was that the overall $19.6B USD haul from the auction clearly showed that it was a clear success.  However, many members felt that individually, the D blocks failure to sell or generate interest was a major failure, though not enough to ruin the rest of the successful auction.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it was brought to the Congress's attention the disturbingly disjointed and unconnected public safety networks in America.  These flaws seriously hinder the networks' abilities to deliver vitally emergency information when it is most needed.

While some advocated a purely government subsidized network, the President and Congress failed to consent to give the authority or funding necessary for such a program.  FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated regretfully, "The simple reality is that public safety does not have the funds to build a network.  It would have been better to take the auction proceeds and provide the public-safety community with the resources needed to build their own interoperable network. But we do not have the authority to directly fund such a network. As a result, the public-private partnership was the only means available to us to address this crucial issue."

By selling the D block spectrum, the government hoped to create a network in which commercial and public safety interests coexisted.  The plan was that between the selling price, with a reserve of $1.3B USD, and other possible revenue generated from the commercial sector, the government would be able to fund the public safety section of the network.  This would allow for cohesive national coverage at last.

However, the auction failed miserably during the auction's early days, with no serious bids placed. 
While the Congress agrees that the auction went nowhere, they resorted to largely partisan bickering, and failed to produce a meaningful strategy.  Republican congressmen Joe Barton and Cliff Stearns recommended the block be re-auctioned and the proceeds be used to build a public safety network.  Democrat John Dingell opposed such a measure, but offered no better alternative.

All party politics aside, whether there is a second auction or not seems like it may be a moot point as there is little interest in the business community for the block.  The government at some point may have to face the hard reality that business simply isn't interested in co-funding a public safety network, and the government either has to make a serious financial commitment of its own, or accept that it is leaving the nation in an inherently insecure state.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

how much...
By zaxxon on 4/16/2008 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 5
... would such a public safety network cost the taxpayer? 10billion? 20billion? how many people would benefit from it? what infrastructure could be safeguarded in the homeland with that?

and... how many days of war in iraq and afghanistan do you get for that sum?

ahhhh.... right......




RE: how much...
By omnicronx on 4/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 2:48:41 PM , Rating: 5
So it is somehow the governments fault that people decided to live on swamp ground, between a river, a sea, and a huge lake?

Explain to me where it says the government is supposed to take care of idiots.

And before you think I don't care, I live down here.


RE: how much...
By elessar1 on 4/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 3:38:47 PM , Rating: 3
So the mass graves were just from a bad case of the flu? Get real.


RE: how much...
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 4/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: how much...
By DrKlahn on 4/16/2008 3:21:35 PM , Rating: 5
Katrina was a failure of the City and County governments. I work with our local EMA and it is the responsibility of both the City and County to have plans in place for prevention of such a crisis and the first 48 hours of dealing with it. FEMA is supposed to have mobilized and be there after the first 2 days. That the local governments made themselves out to be blameless victims is amazing. People want to hate the government and the current administration so bad that they are not looking at what the other organizations involved did.

If you have a category 5 hurricane coming at you and you know the levies won't hold, you don't wait for it to hit and then wonder why the Federal Government in Washington D.C. doesn't have a plan in place for your particular city. Every possible means of mass transit should have been used to evacuate that city and it wasn't.


RE: how much...
By spluurfg on 4/16/2008 4:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
From my limited understanding (discovery channel), I thought that the city officials thought that the levees would hold, as they were designed to for a storm of that strength, and it turns out that there were design flaws. They were concerned about the storm surge going over the tops of the levees, but didn't anticipate levee failure.

Though a public broadcast system to cover the entire US for $1bn or even $10bn doesn't seem like an insane figure, to be honest... we seem to be able to spend much more for a lot less.


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 3:42:53 PM , Rating: 4
WTC 9/11 was an act of terrorism, not natural disaster. Big difference don't you think?

Everyone assumes a certain amount of risk where they live. Or do you really think you should be able to build your house right on a fault line and not pay more insurance than someone in the midwest?

I think a certain amount of aid is needed, National Guard, etc...

But you've got to be joking me about Road Home money and stuff like that. Why does MY tax money need to go to pay for these people too stupid to have insurance?


RE: how much...
By omnicronx on 4/16/2008 3:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone assumes a certain amount of risk where they live. Or do you really think you should be able to build your house right on a fault line and not pay more insurance than someone in the midwest?
Because I am sure when the founding fathers of San Francisco settled the coast they decided, 'wow this place has tons of earthquakes and it is directly on the pacifc fault line, lets build here!'. Having no national emergency response system has nothing to do with insurance or the akward places that our cities reside. The damage has been done, there are millions of people that live in the areas, and you must be a self centered moron to think that these people should have less rights than you when it comes to emergency response.

Why you think its perfectly ok to spend billions of not trillions in places on the other side of the world, yet one someone talks about something that will help your fellow countrymen, you merely pull out the NOT WITH MY TAXES card..
sad.. really realllly sad..

By the way, most people, unless they spoke from the womb do not get to chose where they are born, or how rich their family will be. Many people have no choice but remain where they were born. Judging by your comments though you would not know anything about this.


RE: how much...
By dever on 4/16/2008 6:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
The two places mentioned are both by the water and are consequently more expensive than living inland. The price of living in S.F. is much, much higher than most of the country. The privilege of living in better climate comes with extra costs.

Why, if one person gets hit by lightning (a natural disaster from that person's perspective) should he receive natural disaster aid from the federal government? Now, if you think this person should get aid from the feds, would it change your mind if he had been flying a kite next in a thunderstorm? (Similar to living below sea level next to the gulf during a hurricane.)

We all must accept risks and take the appropriate precautions to mitigate the risks to a level we are comfortable with.

What is really "sad" is individuals who put their "children" in a situation in which they are not comfortable dealing with the consequences of the risk.

By the way omnicrox, how much money (beyond your taxes) or time did you give toward Katrina relief?


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 6:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
amen!


RE: how much...
By omnicronx on 4/16/2008 4:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Explain to me where it says the government is supposed to take care of idiots.
quote:
And before you think I don't care, I live down here.
So you do admit you are an idiot?


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 4:20:35 PM , Rating: 4
Moved down here three weeks after the storm with the company, enjoyed the area, and have decided to stay based out of here ever since.

Plenty of people change their own lives, I don't buy into this whole "socialism" ideal that welfare and these other government programs are spreading. Why is it my duty as a tax payer, to pay not only for the schooling of others children, but housing, food, and possibly soon everyones healthcare? What ever happened to charity?

You keep trying to bring Iraq into this argument, which shows your political bias and your lack of any real logic. What we are doing over their, is National Defense. One of the reasons we have a government. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and fires are NOT National Defense.

I've never taken unemployment, or any other type of "aid", I do not have rich parents, but I have made myself who I am from my own hard work. How is that out of the power of everyone else? Oh yeah, they are too LAZY.


RE: how much...
By pomaikai on 4/16/2008 4:51:58 PM , Rating: 1
Socialism is around to help everyone. US is found on the robinhood principle. Tax the rich and give it to the poor. The other option is to let the rich keep all there money and cause crime, filth, disease, etc to be rampant among everyone else. I have worked hard for the money I make and hate to see it go towards taxes and welfare, but it really does raise the standard of living as a whole.

If we did not share the cost of schooling no one would be able to afford it but the extremely rich. The rich would stay rich, the poor would have no chance to get an education, and there would be no middle class.

Healthcare in general needs to be reformed. With our current system doctors screw the poor and compromise with the rich. Non-insurance rates are from 50-100% higher for the same service. A doctor will charge someone who can afford insurance less than someone who cannot afford it. Now thats a great system. The idea of negotiated rates is crap, everyone should have those rates.

I have every right to by poor and live off welfare and charity, but I choose not to and in making that choice I also choose to pay for taxes, welfare, etc.


RE: how much...
By pomaikai on 4/16/2008 5:04:49 PM , Rating: 3
Also, the reason true "socialism" doesnt work is because of people who will milk the system for everything. Because of this we have a tax system based on percentages. Those who choose not move up in the world and live off of welfare do not live the same life style someone who decides to work hard does. They cant afford the nicer things in life, but there is enough charity/welfare to get medical treatment and food. How much we give them is a balancing act. Take to much in taxes and it is no longer worth it to try and better your situation. Give to little to the poor and crime rates rise, disease rises, and society as a whole goes downhill.


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 5:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
I do not believe that is the place for the government though.

Everything you just said, can be handled by charity.

Yes, charity is dependant on the human heart and such, but even as cold as I am to what happened down here, I gave a good sum to the Red Cross.

Raise the standard of living? How so? Have you toured a lot of these welfare properties? Here, hold on, let me get you a Level IIIA vest so you'll go in there first.


RE: how much...
By mindless1 on 4/17/2008 1:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are deluded if you think charity would cover that. People still have the option to donate time or money to charity and most don't do so to any significant extent. That is their philosopy (or low income for some) which would not change based on income left if taxes were lower.

By providing a safety net for everyone we ensure a certain peace of mind, tranquility. Fact is, you benefit from this in the society and economy that results. You'd like to think "oh I'd just have more money" but fail to realize our policies shape the entire infrastructure of society.

I'm not saying I think goverment should be as large and encompassing in this matters as it is, but there is the very real downside of what happens when people are left without hope, you might say that one effect even with the large govermental aid is our prison system keeps getting more populated. Maybe the government shouldn't spend that money either, but if you want changes to occur in a democracy you get to vote your mind like everyone else.


RE: how much...
By Chernobyl68 on 4/16/2008 7:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
US is found on the robinhood principle. Tax the rich and give it to the poor.


not true, since income tax wasn't established until early in the 20th century, not the 18th century.


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 4:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I rent, carry renters insurance, and live in an area that only got a few feet of water anyway. I understand the risks.


RE: how much...
By pomaikai on 4/16/2008 4:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually we have a reactive government. They care about safeguards, but only after the fact. No one does anything until we have a crisis. If anything is done before hand the people complain about taxes, invasion of privacy, or some other crap. Then after something happens everyone tries to figure out why there was nothing in place to protect everyone.


RE: how much...
By mindless1 on 4/17/2008 2:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
How could they possibly devote the resources to everything that may or may not happen? That's like saying everyone has to constantly be on guard for everything that might go wrong, when instead they have to get some work done in order to have anything at all to safeguard.

I will grant that some things needed more attention. some disasters can be seen coming and reaction times should be a crucial factor in the success of support.


RE: how much...
By clovell on 4/16/2008 5:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
No, it wasn't. New Orleans had levees that were supposed to protect them, but the contractors used by the US Army Corps of Engineers did not build them to specifications.


RE: how much...
By Durrr on 4/16/2008 9:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
They were built to specifications, just not maintained, as the local governments are tasked with maintaining them. Large dirt mounds don't just hang out against moving water forever..


RE: how much...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2008 5:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its pretty obvious that your current government could care less about safeguards unless it has to do with terrorism, or a threat from another country. Katrina was a prime example of this.


Yeah you just got rated down, moron.

For the past 30+ years, the US Army Corpse of Engineers had strongly recommended that the city of New Orleans do a major overhaul and improvement of the levee system and floodgates. And over the past 20+ years tens of MILLIONS of dollars of federal tax payer money was given to the city of New Orleans specifically to correct said problem. A city that has been run almost exclusively by the Democratic party I might add.

Not one red cent was spent on the levee and floodgates out of that money. Complete and total mismanagement, corruption, and neglect caused the Katrina disaster. Not George Bush.

And to all those saying " they were stupid to live under sea level ", I beg you to not go down that road. I am from the city of New Orleans and I'm deeply effected by what happened. If we all only lived in places where nothing could happen, we wouldn't have enough space to live. Should California be abandoned because it catches on fire every year ? Please.

An ounce of prevention beats a pound of a cure. Finger pointing wont change what happened. But taking measures years before could of prevented, or minimized, a tragedy.

Think about it.


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 5:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say abandoned, but seriously, if you are worried sick about it flooding every year, like we are right now with the river level. Why be so shocked when it DOES flood?


RE: how much...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2008 5:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone was shocked. I remember living down there and going through " hurricane season ". And watching the weather channel with my family knowing that THIS could be the one that comes right up through the 'gulf, inland, and smacks the crap out of us with enough rain and wind to cause massive damage. It was literally like playing Russian Roulette.

Katrina was a chance for a media blitz and for the drive bye media to somehow convolute it into being a failure of George Bush. When everyone who ever lived down there knew it could and would happen eventually. I remember the estimated death tolls, that were inflated 20x for sensationalism, causing me to think everyone I had ever known down there was dead. Yes, it was a tragedy. But it wasn't the end of the world like it was made out to be.


RE: how much...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget how Blackwater, WSI, and Armor Group came in and acted like this was Iraq. Shooting people right and left and dumping bodies in the canal.
[/sarcasm]


RE: how much...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2008 6:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah. And all the media people doing a serious interview with people claiming they " heard explosions of George Bush blowin' up the levee ".

I mean, honestly, how much of an agenda must you have when you think thats news worthy ??


By ninjit on 4/16/2008 2:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why they can't take a little of the $20b raised from sale of the other blocks, and use it to fund a nation-wide public-safety network using all of D-block?

Why do they feel they have to sell it in order to use it?

I imagine there would be plenty of headaches associated with a public-private co-existing system:
Imagine a local wireless internet service interfering with radio communications amount police, firemen, EMTs, etc. during an emergency.

That's probably why no company want's to touch D-block with a 10' pole.




By AntiM on 4/16/2008 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. What made the FCC think that a company would want to PAY for the right to build an expensive, highly reliable, fault tolerant wireless infrastructure and then have to allot government organizations most of the bandwidth. I think they're going to need some type of incentive other than a cheap slice of spectrum. They should probably give the block to whatever company presents the best coverage plan, or have a raffle instead of an auction.


By omnicronx on 4/16/2008 3:36:03 PM , Rating: 3
Not that 1.2B out of 20 makes a difference, but I am pretty sure they have already all but spent the money made on the rest of the spectrum. They said most of the money is going to be spent for awareness of DTV and for the changeover in general. (countless tax rebates etc).


By omnicronx on 4/16/2008 3:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
oops.. DTV converter box rebates, not tax ;)


By TimTheEnchanter25 on 4/16/2008 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you can sell something for $19.6 billion that you can't see, touch, hear, or smell and it cost you absoultly nothing; I think it should be considered a success.

They basically sold $19.6 billion worth of air. Sounds like a good deal for them.


Why don't...
By aebiv on 4/16/2008 1:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't they approach AT&T and Verizon and those, saying that they would foot a percentage of the bill from the FCC, if they would be willing to help integrate a system into the block of their choice.




use existing structures
By Screwballl on 4/16/2008 1:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
How many TV stations broadcast over the air using this signal? "Lease" or "rent" this current analog signal from stations and have an existing emergency network in place with chance for expansion such as repeaters for more rural areas... or a satellite broadcasting on this frequency that is not reliant on land based power or utilities... so many possibilities. Ultimately this story had it correct at the end:

quote:
The government at some point may have to face the hard reality that business simply isn't interested in co-funding a public safety network, and the government either has to make a serious financial commitment of its own, or accept that it is leaving the nation in an inherently insecure state.




I can hear it now...
By BadAcid on 4/16/2008 2:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
This hurricane warning was brought to you by:
Alltel

Guess what, Chad...




By ascian5 on 4/16/2008 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not being facetious, I'm honestly in the dark and would like to be educated. How would a block of wireless spectrum provide safety for me and mine? I guess I just don't get what a "public safety network" really is. Whether a business or the government steps up and buys the block, what do they actually do with it and is it practical in creating some sort of warning system? I just don't get it. It seems to me that a country, or presidency, so committed to a "war on terror" which, let's face it, seems to have become a red herring, would do everything they could to provide more means of protecting our nation. More troops, stop-loss, the patriot act, etc all go on, but suddenly this safety measure isn't important enough because they want to make money? I understand that it takes money to do things, but when the government can only squabble about it, it makes their priorities painfully and frighteningly clear. In the end, I need to know that it's worth it.




By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2008 5:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republican congressmen Joe Barton and Cliff Stearns recommended the block be re-auctioned and the proceeds be used to build a public safety network. Democrat John Dingell opposed such a measure, but offered no better alternative .


Need I say more ? Gotta love it.




Shocking...
By heulenwolf on 4/16/2008 8:11:26 PM , Rating: 1
Gee, Congress, do you think the sale might have failed because businesses don't want to invest $billions in networks that will degrade if not completely fail every time a police car, ambulance, or firetruck drive by? Perhaps we should blame Verizon for not building their cell phone network on it so that whenever you call 911 from your cell phone, the call will drop just when the authorities get close. Or maybe we should blame Sprint for not basing WiMax on it so that everyone loses their internet connection every time someone in their neighborhood has an emergency.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki