|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: TWL: RE: RE: Re: AIS implementation
From: Jim Donohue (jim_donohue@XXX.XXX)
Date: Sun Jan 26 2003 - 15:20:04 EST
>
> REPLY
> The logistics of doing so is daunting. At present, AIS is using a narrow
> part of the spectrum.
> The process of polling and getting a response from each vessel is already
> causing some congestion.
> Spectrum allocation is a hotly contested subject, and will remain so for
> years to come.
Actually the system is pretty much obsolete and unsuited to any mass
implementation. It is pretty well hopelessly inferior to common ground
wireless stuff. The truth is that it should probably be junked and done
over...but that is probably impossible given the international bureaucratic
IMO.
I would expect we are more likely to see national implementations. Silly
but probably realistic.
>
> This has been one of the obstacles to getting AIS implemented to date.
> As with civilian aviation, you are more likely to see segregated zones for
> each class of vessel/aircraft.
> Those not equipped with transponders must stay in designated corrridors.
Not really true. Those without transponders have restriction on altitude
and around major airports...but it is those with transponders that are in
fact restricted to corridors. Note that virtually all civilian aircraft
have transponders. Virtually all of this is for traffic control and has no
real security attributes other than a number you can punch if hijacked.
>
> Here in the Strait of Georgia ther is an underwater weapons test range and
> civilian small craft cannot enter.
> A picket boat is on active duty whenever tests are in progress
> but the whole
> area is designated a permanently restricted zone.
Been a while but that area was generally open except when testing underway.
Again it was actually not a "security" thing but to keep the civilians from
getting hit with a torpedo.
>
> I expect this will become the norm in the vicinity of most commercial
> harbours and other sensitive areas.
>
> Yes it does restrict freedom of movement, some would consider it an
> infringement of their personal liberty; but what is the alternative?
>
I fail to see the relevance of transponders to security. I presume any
terrorist boat will have the required legal transponder (As did the jets
seized by the terrorists). The alternative is to recognize that the seaways
are probably not going to be any safer or any more dangereous than our
highways. To achieve safety by a lockdown of the citizenry is pretty dull.
I would strongly suggest that all boaters need to resist stoutly attempts to
restrict access to maritime sites. The powers that be sometimes try to do
this for reason that deal only with making their jobs easier. Real security
is going to require catching the perpetrators before they approach a
sensitive site. Keeping all the cars, trucks, boats and airplanes from
sensitive sites just ain't gonna work.
Jim
>
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
|