[BC] Frontline Wireless emergency network

[Mike McCarthy]

Robert, your vision is completely distorted.

Lets not confuse real engineering with value engineering aimed at cost 
reduction.  Good engineering can and does yield good, or even outstanding 
performance at reasonable costs.  It all boils down to the goals definition 
and the mandate to sustain adhesion to those goals from the 
investors/managers. If the bar is set high, then performance will be high 
and kept there.

If I read the proposal correctly, the bar will be set quite high.

That said, if pragmatic engineering recommends something, the goals 
objective might be to increase the safety by a certain factor. Like making 
sure every possible location in which portable radios would be used can be 
heard by at least two receive sites at a SINAD of 20dB or better.  Not just 
one site...which  many systems operate today regardless of whether it's 
government or private sector use.

I've been part of the design process of complex communications 
systems.  Done correctly, systems can be built very robust and fault 
tolerant sustainable.

MM

At 12:23 PM 3/5/2007 -0500, Robert Meuser wrote
>True, when it comes to public safety traditional engineering does not cut 
>it. I would rather have ten repeaters even if the engineering says one 
>will do. Engineering is about doing more with less. I would rather do more 
>with the most. I really do not care what it costs to have public safety 
>comms, I just want it regardless of the cost and I don't want it shared.
>
>R.
>
>Mike McCarthy wrote: