INTERESTING ARTICLE FROM WIRED on efforts to reinvent the 911 emergency-call system

Instapundit ^ | 12/4/05 | Glenn Reynolds/Gary Wolf

[Phsstpok]

Instapundit points to a Wired article about fixing the 911 system:

HERE'S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE FROM WIRED on efforts to reinvent the 911 emergency-call system to take advantage of more modern technologies. The conclusion seems right:

If national safety - the ability to respond to hurricanes, terrorist attacks, earthquakes - depends on the execution of explicit plans, on soldierly obedience, and on showy security drills, then a decentralized security scheme is useless. But if it depends on improvised reactions to unknown threats, that's a different story. A deeply textured, unmapped system is hard to bring down. A system that encourages improvisation is quick to recover. Ubiquitous networks of warning may constitute our own asymmetrical advantage, and, like the terrorist networks that occasionally carry out spectacular attacks, their power remains obscure until they're called into action.

Read the whole thing.

[Phsstpok]

The main thrust of the Wired article is about the benefits of a decentralized 911 system for responding to emergencies.

However, the take away for me is the benefits of a decentralized response to any emergency. Apply this lesson to Katrina and the failure of the Louisiana (Democrats) to provide even the minimum of response for their citizens (while they ran away and hid) and their attempt to blame their failures on the federal government.

They simply don't understand their jobs.

[DakotaGator]

Good article. It does slightly confuse one when it talks about reinventing the 911 System.

A 911 system is specifically designed to facilitate citizens telephonically reporting emergencies to government emergency services. Nothing else. The article doesn't address changing the 911 system.

What the article does advocate is creating a highly robust, decentralized, interactive system for sharing emergency event data reported via numerous agencies/systems...911 being one of those. So it's about implementing a critical event data-management distribution system, not reinventing the 911 system.

The armed forces already do this type of data-management with various battle management systems. And there are several products out there which are trying to provide similar functionality to the civilian emergency response community. The big problem is that civilian government is so inept it doesn't even realize it has this emergency event data-management problem, let alone realize it has the solution in its hand.

Units of government historically ignore their emergency response/management responsibilities. They are afraid to death of it. At the same time, units of government are turf-obsessed. They do not want to work together.

That's where the failure always comes from. Were local, state, and federal governments to work together on this we would have a phenomenally effective emergency data-management system. Very smart people have already created the basis for it. All government has to do is get its head out of the sand and go for it.

I'm not holding my breath

[hoosierham]

Turf and control are the things too many managers worry about,and that attitude filters down.

I once had only a two channel radio while on road patrol;car to car and car to dispatch.Couldn't hear the dispatch "toning out",i.e. calling for fire and ambulance response even in my jurisdiction.Couldn't hear other departments on the other side of that line on the map.Couldn't hear weather reports and forecast in an area subject to tornado and severe storms. In other words ,all information had to go through the dispatcher.

Finally got new modern 16 channel,scannning capable radios.Suddenly was able to hear other departments and be able to anticipate escorting fire and ambulances.Response and service were improved.

Now the new digital radios will only allow the patrolman to hear one communication source again.Discussed this with a Motorola rep and he smirked that days of casual scanning are over.

Obviously the new radios are more about control than safety.

[DakotaGator]

Now the new digital radios will only allow the patrolman to hear one communication source again.Discussed this with a Motorola rep and he smirked that days of casual scanning are over...

Ain't that the truth!

For interoperability purposes the State of South Dakota went to a Project 25 digital trunked radio system. No casual scanning there.

The system itself is great! But the state government doesn't understand modern command & control requirments nor did it allow local government input to the setup requirements.

So we had a great system that wasn't performing because the state was in its high and mighty turf protection mode. This is slowly being worked out. But it's too little too late.

What really needs to happen is for the elected officials to commit to a proper integrated state-wide command & control system that includes voice and data down to at least the vehicle level and preferably the responder level. And then get out of the way while the users and techies implement it.

This concept must include; emergency response, emergency management, and martial control. That way action can be taken at all levels of command while automatically updating the big picture. Bottom line; response instead of paralysis, and d@mn good situational awareness regardless of location or level.

But don't expect elected officials to ever think at this level of sophistication. It would upset their rice bowls!