One possibility, though limited in coverage and bandwidth is GPRS. AT&T Wireless (my former employer) dedicates 2 channels to packet data. Even when the voice channels are overwhelmed you can still send and receive data on the network. I was actually using the legacy AT&T Wireless data network (CDPD) to MSN chat with a coworker in Seattle during the earthquake a few years ago when no one could make a cell phone calls. Again, coverage and bandwidth considerations would need to be analyzed. -----Original Message----- From: owner-crime@private [mailto:owner-crime@private] On Behalf Of Brian Varine Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:26 PM To: crime@private Subject: Re: [CRIME FW: Wireless Communications during disaster?] First you need to figure out what type of communications you need to begin with and what the mission is. Cell phones are great if they work but in a disaster the network has a habit of becoming overwhelmed. I'm not aware of an entire cellular/PCS network going down over a large area so they seem to be robust enough to stay online. If you get the digital systems they are secure enough for tactical information. FRS work for short range tactical comms. The Coast Guard should have some type of VHF radios correct? Don't forget you also have considerable comm's assets within the Air and Army National Guard. The beauty of Guard units is they can be tasked by the Governor and deployed rather quickly. FEMA has an incredible about of Comm's gear that you might be able to tap. They have everything from satellite uplink trucks to portable trunked radio systems. As others have mentioned, HAM radio is a great asset for comms. During the floods of 96/97 HAM's did a considerable amount of patching messages. I believe the Civil Air Patrol even has the ability to provide communciations in emergencie.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 17:14:43 PDT