To attend one of your training sessions? All I can say is "anywhere any time". Post it and I think you will be surprised and pleased at the response.
Best regards,
Cowboy
How many would be your break-even point, say next year spring in DC or Baltimore?
God willing, i am changing jobs and will have an access to people who would be interested.
How many would be your break-even point, say next year spring in DC or Baltimore?
God willing, i am changing jobs and will have an access to people who would be interested.
Count me in !
I would also be in.
I'd like to add though that this type of material could likely be over all of our heads, or be to the point of not needing to be used.
The course outline would need to cover issues that one can be grasped by people who are not RF engineers, and two have a short time to grasp it.
Thank you armresl for saying what I was thinking.
To attend one of your training sessions? All I can say is "anywhere any time". Post it and I think you will be surprised and pleased at the response.
Best regards,
Cowboy
Thanks so much for saying so Cowboy.
I would also be in.
Good news, thanks.
I'd like to add though that this type of material could likely be over all of our heads…
Content list from one of my fundamentals courses, below. Perhaps you could indicate what you might consider you wouldn't understand?
Cell Site Analysis Fundamentals
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Linking Identifiers Framework Elements (LIFE©)
Section 3 GSM and 3G Standards
Section 4 Subscriber Check/Billing/Call Records Check List
Section 5 Example Subscriber Check
Section 6 Example Call Detail/Data Record (CDR)
Section 7 Example Subscriber Billing
Section 8 Example Call Records
Section 9 Example Mobile Network Details
Section 10 Cross-referencing sources of evidence
Section 11 PLMN - Introduction to GSM/WCDMA Network Elements
Section 12 PLMN - GSM & WCDMA Base Stations
Section 13 PLMN - GSM & WCDMA Transmission Techology
Section 14 PLMN - GSM & WCDMA Mobile Switching Centre (MSC)
Section 15 PLMN - GSM & WCDMA Databases
Section 16 PLMN - GSM & WCDMA Support Databases
Section 17 Introduction to Cell Site Identification
Section 18 Introduction to Cell Site Analysis
Section 19 Cell Site Analysis - Tools
Section 20 Cell Site Analysis - Ideas on Site Surveys
Section 21 Cell Site Analysis - Ideas for Radio Testing
Section 22 Cell Site Analysis - Regulation/Industry Requirements that assists CSA
Section 23 Cell Site Analysis - Notable Review Material
Section 24 Sample Cell Site Investigation Check List
or be to the point of not needing to be used.
I would be puzzled should any examiner admit to or suggest s/he need not know about or consider certain areas of the mobile network which can influence the interpretation given to evidence due to events that can and do occur in mobile fixed and radio networks on a regular basis. Examiners are expected to already have the knowledge / skillset prior to accepting an engagement/instruction, to investigate, framing requests for further evidence and/or reporting conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence.
Greg,
To teach all 24 sections how many hours or weeks do you require? Some of those sections look like they could be covered in a relatively short period of time while others look like you could spend a whole week on them.
Cheers!
Ed, the beginners introductory classroom course is 3-5 days depending on knowledge and skillsets. Some people learn better in five days than they do three days. If you desire conducting field surveys/rf testing and advanced techniques then that is a 3-5 weeks course.
A natural desire can be to investigate evidence at a crime scene and which there can be a natural expectation by engaging/instructing parties that believe investigators/examiners already possess the knowledge and skillsets.
For instance, you probably want to investigate using the initial evidence at a crime scene and work from there eg France Car Shootings and Mobile Evidence - http//
To do that of course means a common understanding of the basics is desirable as to where evidence can be found in the various locations in cellular devices, radio system and fixed network.
I do a lot of these types of cases. The facts are that in the US, we get very little to no data about the cellular system in the local area. The evidence is basically limited to the call detail record and in some cases, not all, the sectors for the cell towers.
There is no engineering data or anything else to support how the tower coverages are drawn on maps, it is just an educated guess by the examiner based on the proximity of one tower to its neighbors.
There was a very good article on actual testing of cellular coverage that showed the problems even with measuring cell coverage in a particular area using different methods
Historic cell site analysis – Overview of principles and survey methodologies
Digital Investigation, Volume 8, Issues 3–4, February 2012, 185193
Matthew Tart, Iain Brodie, Nicholas Gleed, James Matthews
Many of the cases I have done included evidence presented incorrectly;
1. Sectors all off by 120 degrees.
2. Sectors not plotted because the analyst did not catch that the numbering is 2,3,4 instead of 1,2,3 and fail to translate the calls to the tower sectors so they say there is no sector data for that particular call.
3. Tower coverages drawn in a way that is impossible for the cell system to work (i.e. 3 mile radius instead of 1 mile radius with coverages overlapping multiplr other towers.)
4. A general lack of knowledge beyond the most basic of how cellular systems work.
5. Guessing at the azimuths when it is not provided by the carrier in the tower location records.
6. Failing to plot towers when they would change the way the circles are drawn.
7. No information as to the shape of a sector antenna, i.e. no information regarding downward tilt, shadowing, highway coverage, etc.
I can go on and on and will be doing so in my new book on this subject.
There is no scientific or engineering basis for the maps being drawn by analysts here in the US as the information simply is not available.
The court made the right decision if you look at what constitutes scientific evidence for the purpose of Daubert.
1. Cellular analysis has not been the subject of any scientific study as it is applied as a forensic analysis.
2. There has been no peer reviewed papers on the subject to support it.
3. The engineering data simply is not available in the US.
4. It is not supported by any empirical studies to check the error rate for this type of analysis.
The radius of towers is not provided by the carrier other than the "Design Radius" which is normally stated at the maximum range of coverage, i.e. 3 miles, 9 miles, etc.