IP: A "Better Network" for Emergency Communications

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> December 25, 2001
> A Better Network for Emergency Communications
> By REED HUNDT
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/opinion/25HUND.html?todaysheadlines>
>
> [W] ASHINGTON -- With the consent of Congress, the Bush administration has 
> now committed to spending tens of billions of dollars to build a missile 
> defense shield. In time this technology may prove useful. Yet we are 
> reluctant to spend far less money on far more feasible technology that is 
> just as crucial to our national defense and safety.
>
> Instead, the National Communications System, a federal agency, has 
> proposed that government officials be able to take over the wireless 
> networks used by cellular telephones in the event of an emergency. Under 
> its plan, only users with "priority access" to the network - police 
> officers, firefighters and emergency medical personnel - would be able to 
> use their cell phones. Others would be blocked.
>
> The heroes of Flight 93, who used their cell phones to find out about the 
> other attacks of Sept. 11, would not have known how important it was to 
> resist the hijackers. And those trapped in the World Trade Center would 
> have been denied a precious final chance to call and say goodbye to their 
> families and dear friends.
>
> The attacks of Sept. 11 also exposed the inability of police, firefighters 
> and national security forces to communicate quickly and effectively with 
> each other. Not only was the cell phone network overloaded, but some 
> firefighters may have died because their radios malfunctioned and they did 
> not hear an order to evacuate the World Trade Center.
>
> Now is the time to mobilize the tremendous powers of our scientists and 
> entrepreneurs to improve our communications system and help to keep our 
> nation safe. We can do that quickly, cheaply and without limiting access 
> to the network we use today.
>
> Police, fire and military personnel should be able to communicate with 
> each other on hand-held devices anywhere, anytime. Wireless devices 
> specifically customized for these uses should be designed, built and 
> distributed within the next year.
>
> The communications should be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping. The 
> system should be robust, so it will not go down even if parts of it are 
> damaged. It should permit pictures of suspects to be transmitted instantly 
> to everyone from a traffic safety officer to an F.B.I. detective. This 
> so-called "third-generation" cellular network would offer only limited 
> access to consumers and businesses in a crisis.
>
> We also possess the technology to help emergency workers locate victims in 
> a catastrophe, and we should implement it. Office workers and their 
> visitors could carry ID cards that would permit building security guards 
> to find them. The card holder could turn the signal off, of course - and 
> could also turn it on. [ WHY DON'T I BELIEVE THIS djf]
>
> The government should also improve its communication to the general 
> public. In an emergency, appropriate officials should be able to 
> communicate over all electronic media to all affected citizens. Bulletins 
> should go over broadcast TV, cable TV, satellite TV, wireless phones and 
> the Internet to everyone in the area under attack from terrorists or under 
> threat from natural calamity. Timely information saves lives, promotes 
> calm and can help catch perpetrators.
>
> All these steps involve technologies being invented and tested right now 
> in academic and commercial trials. None is far-fetched. All can be 
> deployed within a year or two. And each of these steps would not only save 
> lives in the event of attack, but would be useful in local disasters and 
> emergencies.
>
> These technologies would cost a fraction of what the administration wants 
> to spend on the missile shield. And if we spend federal money to buy these 
> technologies now, we will also be benefiting the moribund technology 
> sector of our economy.
>
> We have done this before: the Internet itself began as a government 
> project. In the 1960's, the Pentagon sponsored research at several 
> American universities to create a communications network that could 
> survive nuclear attack.
>
> Now, with a similar purpose, we can achieve a similar goal - strengthening 
> our country and generating economic benefits. With support from our 
> political leaders, the technology industry can deliver the tools we need.
>
> Reed Hundt, a senior adviser to McKinsey & Company, was chairman of the 
> Federal Communications Commission from 1993 to 1997.

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/