|Hi Frank -- You posted on this subject last year; the result was an informal survey of emergency/disaster telecommunications -- of which more later. |
About 12 years ago, links were posted to original documents on post-WWII formation of the Bell network. Stakeholders included the military and government; clearly, telecommunication was viewed as a vital system. One quality of the system was resilience. Those who remember blast-hardened microwave towers and 48-hour battery-operated telephone functionality need no linked documentation.
However post-Bell, there has been no authority governing network buildout. While tremendous advances have been made, the sole guiding principle has been commercial competition. Nobody (including the FCC and legislators) speaks for resilience, the public or national interest. Over the years, many comments orbit around the fragility of modern telecommunications. The fact is, systemic designed-in resilience has been abandoned.
Re: "Real-life capabilities (as opposed to table-top simulations), as well as the type of unpreparedness and ineptness we've all witnessed in the past, in this sense, are usually assessed only after the fact. I.e., only after a natural cataclysmic event or some unimaginably dastardly action against society. It's too bad that we'll probably never know the true extent of interoperability capabilities until the next disaster truly requiring it."
There has been improvement, but nothing approaching Japanese and Taiwanese standards.
As we all know, in the guise of spectrum "sharing" attempts are being made to degrade or displace Wi-Fi, which offers the only ubiquitous large-scale emergency/disaster alternative.
Regarding agencies, the military and first responders (as opposed to ordinary people) as part of last year's informal survey, this more informative report was posted:
A Review of Satellite Communications and Complementary Approaches to Support Distributed Disaster Response