I would simply point out a telling factual misrepresentation in Steve Flanders' post from yesterday:
"Despite the best efforts of the town manager and selectboard, we are now in a communications “gray-out”, compared to last year. This means that first responders are unable to receive pager notifications and voice communications in areas where they previously could when a medical emergency or fire occurred. This is true not just in outlying areas, but also downtown."
I guess this comes down to how you define "best efforts."
This "gray-out" was the foreseeable and avoidable outcome of our Town Manager's decision to forego an FCC extension and narrowband our emergency communications equipment without a tower in place.
Back on September 5th, Donald Kreis presented the Selectboard with a roadmap to securing an FCC extension that would have allowed the town to continue using our existing "wideband" emergency communications equipment until the new broadband system was up and running.
A day later, the Selectboard received a letter, signed by 124 residents, also asking the Selectboard to file for an FCC extension to December 31, 2013 or later "if warranted by your judgment."
At their September 12th Selectboard meeting, the Town Manager rejected the idea of an FCC extension, stating that we don't own the towers where our transmitters are placed. He stated that getting an FCC extension for our transmitters would put those towers (in Hanover and Hartford) in violation of the federal narrowbanding mandate. (See September 12th SB Meeting video). He further stated his intention to have all our emergency services switched over to narrowband equipment by November 15th. (See September 12th SB Meeting Minutes)
This prompted my listserv post/letter to the Selectboard questioning their unwavering reliance upon our Town Manager's factual representations.
As I explained in that letter:
At the September 12th Selectboard meeting to consider seeking an FCC extension to allow time for a more thorough review of our options, this Town Manager stated categorically that an FCC extension is pointless because our transmitters are located on towers in Hanover and Hartford. An FCC extension for us, he claimed, would therefore place both Hanover and Hartford in violation of their FCC narrow-banding requirement.
And yet First Student, the national school bus company, received an FCC extension last Spring that includes frequencies transmitting from more than 100 different call signs owned by municipalities or private telecommunications companies who aren't deemed to be in violation. See FCC extension, esp. footnote 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1227A1.pdf
A call to FCC counsel confirms that the FCC licenses -- and extends licenses for -- transmission frequencies by call signs, regardless of the location or ownership of those call signs. The 2010 draft feasibility study itself outlines options for implementing Norwich-only frequencies to improve existing wide-band and future narrow-band reception on existing towers. And yet public debate of the extension option is reduced to a single categorical statement it can't be done.
Looking back, it seems clear our Town Manager expected a VTel tower to be in place fairly soon so the risk of having a few months of an emergency communications "gray-out" as we have today was an acceptable risk. As he stated in the Selectboard Minutes from that same September 12th meeting, "the permit package is being prepared by VTel and should be submitted to the Public Service Board in September."
Perhaps he was also concerned an FCC extension would remove the December 31, 2012 deadline that he and some Selectboard members had used to justify the lack of time to consider tower alternatives?
Unfortunately, though perhaps foreseeably, it's February 24th and VTel has yet to submit a pre-application notice to even begin the Public Service Board permit review.
The decision to narrowband by November 15th was a judgment call. A judgment call with clear implications for both our emergency services personnel and those they serve. It was a judgment call which grows more questionable by the day.
Based on my attendance at Selectboard meetings and regular review of their minutes and information packet, never once was there any public discussion of the risks involved in proceeding with narrowbanding in the event the VTel tower was delayed or VTel drops out. Never once was the possibility of securing an FCC extension to maintain public safety in the interim seriously considered.
"Best efforts?"
I'm willing to concede you meant well. But good judgment -- and certainly best efforts -- are not simply a matter of making decisions. They are a matter of making decisions based on weighing a variety of information sources, including those you may wish to ignore.
CC
- - - - -
From: Stephen Flanders
Subject: [Norwich] Why I will vote on March 5th to approve the Norwich Radio Communications System Bond
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:36:30 -0500
Title: Why I will vote on March 5th to approve the Norwich Radio Communications System Bond
"Despite the best efforts of the town manager and selectboard, we are now in a communications “gray-out”, compared to last year. This means that first responders are unable to receive pager notifications and voice communications in areas where they previously could when a medical emergency or fire occurred. This is true not just in outlying areas, but also downtown."
I guess this comes down to how you define "best efforts."
This "gray-out" was the foreseeable and avoidable outcome of our Town Manager's decision to forego an FCC extension and narrowband our emergency communications equipment without a tower in place.
Back on September 5th, Donald Kreis presented the Selectboard with a roadmap to securing an FCC extension that would have allowed the town to continue using our existing "wideband" emergency communications equipment until the new broadband system was up and running.
A day later, the Selectboard received a letter, signed by 124 residents, also asking the Selectboard to file for an FCC extension to December 31, 2013 or later "if warranted by your judgment."
At their September 12th Selectboard meeting, the Town Manager rejected the idea of an FCC extension, stating that we don't own the towers where our transmitters are placed. He stated that getting an FCC extension for our transmitters would put those towers (in Hanover and Hartford) in violation of the federal narrowbanding mandate. (See September 12th SB Meeting video). He further stated his intention to have all our emergency services switched over to narrowband equipment by November 15th. (See September 12th SB Meeting Minutes)
This prompted my listserv post/letter to the Selectboard questioning their unwavering reliance upon our Town Manager's factual representations.
As I explained in that letter:
At the September 12th Selectboard meeting to consider seeking an FCC extension to allow time for a more thorough review of our options, this Town Manager stated categorically that an FCC extension is pointless because our transmitters are located on towers in Hanover and Hartford. An FCC extension for us, he claimed, would therefore place both Hanover and Hartford in violation of their FCC narrow-banding requirement.
And yet First Student, the national school bus company, received an FCC extension last Spring that includes frequencies transmitting from more than 100 different call signs owned by municipalities or private telecommunications companies who aren't deemed to be in violation. See FCC extension, esp. footnote 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1227A1.pdf
A call to FCC counsel confirms that the FCC licenses -- and extends licenses for -- transmission frequencies by call signs, regardless of the location or ownership of those call signs. The 2010 draft feasibility study itself outlines options for implementing Norwich-only frequencies to improve existing wide-band and future narrow-band reception on existing towers. And yet public debate of the extension option is reduced to a single categorical statement it can't be done.
Looking back, it seems clear our Town Manager expected a VTel tower to be in place fairly soon so the risk of having a few months of an emergency communications "gray-out" as we have today was an acceptable risk. As he stated in the Selectboard Minutes from that same September 12th meeting, "the permit package is being prepared by VTel and should be submitted to the Public Service Board in September."
Perhaps he was also concerned an FCC extension would remove the December 31, 2012 deadline that he and some Selectboard members had used to justify the lack of time to consider tower alternatives?
Unfortunately, though perhaps foreseeably, it's February 24th and VTel has yet to submit a pre-application notice to even begin the Public Service Board permit review.
The decision to narrowband by November 15th was a judgment call. A judgment call with clear implications for both our emergency services personnel and those they serve. It was a judgment call which grows more questionable by the day.
Based on my attendance at Selectboard meetings and regular review of their minutes and information packet, never once was there any public discussion of the risks involved in proceeding with narrowbanding in the event the VTel tower was delayed or VTel drops out. Never once was the possibility of securing an FCC extension to maintain public safety in the interim seriously considered.
"Best efforts?"
I'm willing to concede you meant well. But good judgment -- and certainly best efforts -- are not simply a matter of making decisions. They are a matter of making decisions based on weighing a variety of information sources, including those you may wish to ignore.
CC
- - - - -
From: Stephen Flanders
Subject: [Norwich] Why I will vote on March 5th to approve the Norwich Radio Communications System Bond
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:36:30 -0500
Title: Why I will vote on March 5th to approve the Norwich Radio Communications System Bond
No comments:
Post a Comment