[FedCom] Interoperability Hamppers Agencies

[Bruce Miller]

--- Michael Rumberg <michael.rumberg at verizon.net>
wrote:

> My larger point being better planning equals better
> performance.

This makes sense. Sometimes the underlying
infrastructure does not lend itself to efficient
communication in disasters because of poor planning.
For example, the City of Seattle is going to build the
new EOC in an RF hole -- at the bottom of a hill with
lots of big buildings. This is not surprising,
considering that the word "communication" is not even
used in the site criteria document.
www.SeattleEOC.info has my take on the lack of
planning and thinking in the matter of siting the new
EOC.
 
> Your point of system redundancies is well taken.  At
> the same time it also shows my point of better
> planning by including redundancies such as another
> poster pointed out in this same thread) reduces
> downtime.

Agree that redundancy is important, but as was the
case in the Nisqually earthquake in the Seattle area,
capacity is also an issue. There's simply no way the
800 Mhz trunked system in King County can accomodate
8-10k radios operating at once.



Bruce Miller