The Role of Chronic Radio Interoperability Impediments in the Butler, PA Assassination Attempt

  There are many inconvenient truths about radio spectrum sharing and transceiver interoperability that require full ventilation and resolution. Spectrum users want exclusive access and—news flash—they do not like to share!   

          Campaign events, like the Trump Bulter, PA rally, require short notice, forced cooperation between and among federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, as well as a variety of other government agencies. The radios used by onsite Secret Service and law enforcement officers operate on different channels requiring ad hoc adjustments to achieve interoperability.  Software can satisfy this mission critical requirement, but there must be an unconditional commitment to program all radios to operate on all frequencies available for use at any upcoming event.  

          While government agencies have exclusive access to more than half of all usable radio frequencies, bandwidth becomes scarce, because of the insistence on exclusivity.  Until quite recently, federal government agencies launched single user satellites, even though they could save billions of dollars and access more capacity by negotiating a public private partnership.  Innovations in spectrum sharing make it possible to share satellites and frequencies without interference.  

          But no one likes to share. It’s human nature, not technology triggering the interoperability impasse that almost killed Donald Trump.  

          Short notice, one-time events, like a campaign rally, all but guarantee that on site personnel will have transceivers that transmit and receive different frequencies.  The exclusive bandwidth allocation requires the use of devices that can be reprogrammed to use a common set of channels.  This means on-site personnel may need to use a temporary device about which they may lack full understanding on its operation. Of course, there has to be funding available for temporary deployment of these expensive, “frequency agile” handsets.  

          Spectrum interoperability is not rocket science.  Throughout the world, cellphone handsets operate on different frequencies, using incompatible operating formats.  Commercial necessity and consumer friendly regulations have achieved interoperability, including the ability of subscribers to keep their existing telephone number when changing service providers. Wireless subscribers can “roam” throughout the world using the same handset they use at home.  

          Interoperability requires ongoing commitment to pay attention to spectrum incompatibility issues.  It appears that Secret Service officials got too comfortable with their tried-and-true procedures that may not have given spectrum problems a priority.  Additionally, we should not ignore the possibility that turf concerns, envy, and resentment might surface when the feds “parachute in” and take charge.  

          Interoperability requires conscientious cooperation, despite the inclination to push back.

Maverick Capitulation: Why TMobile and Southwest Airlines Abandoned Their Core Values

     Once upon a time, TMobile prided itself as the “uncarrier” wireless company.  After acquiring Sprint, it quickly abandoned a strong commitment to innovate and enhance its value proposition.  See https://telefrieden.blogspot.com/2018/06/life-in-antitrust-wonderland-suspension.html; https://telefrieden.blogspot.com/2019/11/more-overstatements-about-lovefest.html.

          TMobile quickly realized that it did not have to spend sleepless afternoons competing with AT&T and Verizon.  The market had become so concentrated that TMobile could increase their profit margin through what antitrust experts call conscious parallelism: a go along, get along, strategy that comes close to collusion. Now, little differentiates the three national carriers aside from what “free” video streaming they offer high margin subscribers.

        Southwest Airlines, perhaps reluctantly, has followed the T Mobile strategy.  For many ears, the airline differentiated itself from the other large, legacy carriers, by offering lower fares, open seating without additional charge, and free carriage of two bags.  Eventually Southwest realized it did not have to offer the lowest rates for every route.  Recently, it announced the cancellation of open seating, disingenuously characterizing the decision as a revenue neutral response to consumer demand. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/southwest-boarding-history/index.html.

       Does anyone really believe Southwest will not monetize seat access just like the other carriers?  Southwest realized that it could eliminate this perk and convert seat access into a new profit center, just like the other airlines.  Why not make a bundle on decoupling air carriage from where a passenger sits.

         It is not rocket science to detect an obvious outcome: when markets concentrate, through mergers, acquisitions, barriers to market entry, and lax antitrust enforcement, the surviving businesses have little incentive to reduce rates and enhance the customer experience.  

          Because consumers have limited choices in airlines and wireless carriers, we cannot vote with our pocketbooks and take our business elsewhere when we suffer from bad—vary bad—customer care. 

          TMobile is not the fearless, iconoclastic uncarrier anymore and neither is Southwest.