Interoperable Radios Closer to Unified Communications.

[TexScan780D]

Interoperable radios, satellite systems bring agencies closer to unified communications.

Interoperable radios, satellite systems bring agencies closer to unified communications -- Government Computer News

[jim202]

What is missing between the lines and not being said here is that you may obtain a radio that will
do multiple bands, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Maybe you can use a radio that you have to
constantly switch back and forth, but that is not my idea of interoperability.

If your going to have interoperability, you need to have at least one radio that can do 2 bands at
the same time. If not, then you might as well get a second radio. Your still going to act as a
relay or middle man with one radio that you have to flip back and forth.

Example: On scene at a fire. Chief gets a call that more water pressure is needed by the
second floor attack team. Chief says standby, and has to take his radio off of the active
fire channel, fumble with the channel knob to get to the other band that the pumper is on.
Tells the pumper more pressure on the feed line. In the meantime, a fireman on the roof
calls for the chief that fire is breaking through at the rear of the building. Chief doesn't hear
the call because he is using his "interoperability radio" on another band. Chief switches
his radio back to the working frequency and thinks all is well. In the meantime, the roof just
caved in on the people working on the second floor.

Yup, we now have radios that are multi band. Yup we now have "INTEROPERABILITY" with
our mulit band radios.

Jim

Originally Posted by TexScan780D

Interoperable radios, satellite systems bring agencies closer to unified communications.

Interoperable radios, satellite systems bring agencies closer to unified communications -- Government Computer News

[davidzimmerman]

when theirs is a fire most if not all are on one fireground channel.if the scene is big they might have more channels used.at cleveland hopkins airport they had a drill last weekend and 4 of the m-tac channels were used on the ohio state marcs system.sometimes you need more than 2 radios to do a big scene for a command vehicle.i'm sure its always going to be trouble with communications with citys on different systems.this is my input and would be nice is one day one radio for all types of calls.

[jim202]

I have been in the fire service for over 35 years and it still amazes me just how stubborn some
departments are when it comes to radio operations and mutual aid. As I travel around the country
frequently being involved with radio interoperability, I see all sorts of problems that will probably
never be solved as long as the current leaders are in place. The mind set seems to have no place
for new ideas or changes in the way things are done. "We have done it this way since I can
remember, why should we change now" is a common reply.

With that said, I am a firm supporter of the "National Interoperability" radio channels. They
provide a number of additional channels that can be used at most mutual aid incidents. These
channels are great for the unloading of traffic at an incident from the normal working channels.
In most cases, you are only communicating over a distance of a couple of blocks at the most.

Why tie up a whole city system for an incident that can be handled by portables on a simplex
channel? But many will argue that you need to stay on the normal channels for this reason or
that reason. Most of them don't hold any water except the hot air that it took to tell their side
of how it will be done.

If you look at most state interoperability plans, you will find that the "National Interoperability"
channels have been included in how the state will operate. Now if you talk with the local
agencies, you get a different story.

How can we all get on the same page and talking to each other? DHS has this plan that
a multi band radio will be the "Holy Grail" to all these problems. As I see it, most of the
DHS people have never been put in the position of having to work with multiple agencies
on different radio bands. They just don't understand the problems that you have with
the multi bands being used at the same time. This is why gateway patches have grown
to be a common item today. They solve the issue of allowing agencies on different
bands to have instant communications with each other.

Those states that have had the fore site to look down the road and make plans to solve
the multi band communications issues have started to move forward. Probably the state
that is leading the pack is Virginia. They have started with a small group of agencies and
have gone forward. Virginia obtained 2 grant packages for the Lynchburg and Roanoke
regions of the state. There are now some 37 dispatch centers that have interoperability
gateways installed to allow any of the locations to interconnect to any other 911 dispatch
center in the system.

As funding is obtained, Virginia is moving forward and adding additional 911 dispatch centers
to the interoperability system. The agencies that currently have the COMLINC system installed
have made positive comments. Not only are conventional simplex and repeater channels
connected to the system, there are EDACS and Motorola trunking systems connected.

A couple of the 911 dispatch centers asked to be able to remotely change frequencies on
selected radios. This has been included in the Virginia COMLINC system on a per user request
as needed. One radio is on a mountain top and is controlled over a microwave T1 connection.
The gateway system can change channels as well as change to different zones through the
gateway system.

To end up with a multi band radio, but only able to use it on one band solves nothing. It just
becomes another radio that can't communicate with other radios on other bands at the same
time. Right now I view it as a new toy, that the users will see the short functionality of it and
start asking for a different model that can at least link 2 bands together. Like at least being
able to receive 2 bands at the same time. I don't mind having to switch the transmitter back
and forth, but you really need a dual band receiver at the same time.

I have said enough for now. Taken up enough space for now. I just wish that the radio companies
would listen to the end users out in the field. But they would rather do their own thing and supply
what they feel is needed, not what the grunt out in the field is asking for.

Jim

Originally Posted by davidzimmerman

when theirs is a fire most if not all are on one fireground channel.if the scene is big they might have more channels used.at cleveland hopkins airport they had a drill last weekend and 4 of the m-tac channels were used on the ohio state marcs system.sometimes you need more than 2 radios to do a big scene for a command vehicle.i'm sure its always going to be trouble with communications with citys on different systems.this is my input and would be nice is one day one radio for all types of calls.

[rankin39]

"DHS has this plan that a multi band radio will be the "Holy Grail" to all these problems. As I see it, most of the DHS people have never been put in the position of having to work with multiple agencies on different radio bands. They just don't understand the problems that you have with the multi bands being used at the same time."

Unfortunately the procurement officer for a lot of these agencies is probably either an MBA or an attorney rather than an engineer or an end-user. Same for the FCC for that matter! These guys get a "visit" from a Motorola, Thales or Harris sales rep. (who then gets a colleague to write the specs for the proposed system) and it's all over.

Bob, WoNXN

[Samuel]

Maybe its a regional difference or maybe im missing something but I see no reason why both agencies cant operate on the same channel. If you have the host agency handling dispatch operations and the visiting agency (who is on a different band) using this radio to work off of your channel then I dont see why you would need to use both bands at the same time. In our area this is how Fire incidents are handled now and we are all on 800. If our units are dispatched into a neighboring county they switch to that counties system. I would personally think this direct interop would be better than trying to link channels.

[jim202]

You have to understand that not all areas of the country are as lucky as you. County A is on VHF
and they get dispatched to county B who is on UHF. There is also another county there to help
that just happens to be like you and has 800 trunking radios. No one can talk to any of the other
units due to the radios all being on different bands.

This different band thing is becoming a major problem for mutual aid as the larger counties are
being sold a bill of goods to go to trunking systems. Not only does the radios cost more, but you
actually loose ability to talk to some of your neighbors. This is why there has been so much
talk about multi band radios.

The multi band radios that are being presented right now are really a single band radio that can
be changed to a different band. Your still stuck using the radio as a single band radio. They
haven't solved much at all. Just allowed you to switch between bands and operate one at a time.

Jim

Originally Posted by Samuel

Maybe its a regional difference or maybe im missing something but I see no reason why both agencies cant operate on the same channel. If you have the host agency handling dispatch operations and the visiting agency (who is on a different band) using this radio to work off of your channel then I dont see why you would need to use both bands at the same time. In our area this is how Fire incidents are handled now and we are all on 800. If our units are dispatched into a neighboring county they switch to that counties system. I would personally think this direct interop would be better than trying to link channels.

[Samuel]

Again I guess Im missing the point. It would seem that with the three jurisdictions you named that if they all had these multiband radios then the incident could take place on the UHF channel and the jurisdictions with 800 and VHF could use these radios to operate on UHF. Hence you only need to operate on UHF at that time. Once the incident is finished everyone switches back to their primary system. That was the point of my example about operating on the host agencies system. As long as they can switch between bands in the field I dont see the issue. Sorry if I am being thick headed and yes were are very lucky to have the direct interoperability we have here both due to technology and policy.

[doctree2]

The other option is a gateway that acts like a multiband (or crossband) repeater. It hears the VHF tx and repeats it on the 800 system. When the 800 system replies it repeats it on the VHF freq. The one we have in our county will hear VHF-Lo, VHF-Hi, UHF and 800 and can repeat on all bands if so configured for an event. This facilitates a mutual aid response from out of county.

Even with grants not everyone (See St. Johns County, FL) can afford an 800 trunked system. Our county has adopted a UHF multicast system using available frequencies. The one agency on 800 has a gateway talkgroup to the UHF. The ultimate key is for the pre-planning of mutal aid partners so that comms is never an issue when a response is needed.

[jim202]

The current issue is that there are no radios that are available for mobile install today. Your looking
at the first version of fielded portable radios. Motorola is talking about coming out with a radio that
will have 2 bands in one box. You have to tell them which bands you want at the time of order. Can't
be field changed later.

But back to basics. The current price of these so called multi band radios is up in the sky at the
cost of a full blown trunking radio with features. Not too many agencies are going to be able to
purchase these gold plated things.

So not only are you limited to one band at a time, you have to auction off your first born child in
order to be able to purchase one. Doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

Jim

Originally Posted by Samuel

Again I guess Im missing the point. It would seem that with the three jurisdictions you named that if they all had these multiband radios then the incident could take place on the UHF channel and the jurisdictions with 800 and VHF could use these radios to operate on UHF. Hence you only need to operate on UHF at that time. Once the incident is finished everyone switches back to their primary system. That was the point of my example about operating on the host agencies system. As long as they can switch between bands in the field I dont see the issue. Sorry if I am being thick headed and yes were are very lucky to have the direct interoperability we have here both due to technology and policy.

[N_Jay]

Interoperability is about being able to talk to other groups (usually in a command responsibility) when you need and to talk within your task group most of the time.

The dual band radios greatly aid (but don't perfectly fix) this issue by allowing command nets to operate on one band, and tactical groups to operate on an other.

Those who think "interoperability" is all about having everyone on the same channels or linking channels together "just don't get it".

Yes, a brand new high tier radio with features not previously available will be more expensive than existing lower featured radios (Duh, if I may say so).
Yes they will come down.

Yes, mobile are following, because the value proposition of a dual band mobile in a vehicle that can easily support two radios is a lot lower than the value proposition of a dual (or multi-)band portable radio.

[Samuel]

Thanks for the replies. Again we are very spoiled in this area with the level of interop and cooperation we have. I have the ability to talk to every jurisdiction in the region minus state police and one county. I can see senarios such as NJays where you are trying to use multiple bands on the same incident particularly on fire side for incidents such as the recent wildfires in CA. Also Jim your point about cost is an excellent one. If you cant afford certain radio systems you probably cant afford to outfit an entire agency with the APX radios.

[jim202]

Sometime in the next couple of months, the COMLINC system should be installed in your dispatch
center. Once that happens, you would then have the ability to link into the state police, as well
as the other agencies that already have the COMLINC gateways installed.

Several of the agencies have had to use the COMLINC gateways for some larger brush fires. One
agency was on UHF and the other agency was on 800. The patch worked very well for them and
gave real time ability for the crews on the ground to interact with each other as they worked the
brush fire.

Jim

Originally Posted by Samuel

Thanks for the replies. Again we are very spoiled in this area with the level of interop and cooperation we have. I have the ability to talk to every jurisdiction in the region minus state police and one county. I can see senarios such as NJays where you are trying to use multiple bands on the same incident particularly on fire side for incidents such as the recent wildfires in CA. Also Jim your point about cost is an excellent one. If you cant afford certain radio systems you probably cant afford to outfit an entire agency with the APX radios.

[776]

Why can't they make public safety radios like ham radios that have multiband and receive on 2 are more band at the same time at a reasonable price? We have done mutual aid with ajoining county for years both counties on vhf and both counties had the other in their radio. Now the ajoining county went to uhf p-25 now we don't have a clue what going on in the other county and sure can't talk to them. Now we have to have dispatch to relay by phone on everything. This SUCKS when you are in chase and can't even talk to the car just down the road.

776

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by 776

Why can't they make public safety radios like ham radios that have multiband and receive on 2 are more band at the same time at a reasonable price?

Because!
Quality costs money.
(By quality, I mean both physical construction and how well they work)

Originally Posted by 776

We have done mutual aid with ajoining county for years both counties on vhf and both counties had the other in their radio. Now the ajoining county went to uhf p-25 now we don't have a clue what going on in the other county and sure can't talk to them. Now we have to have dispatch to relay by phone on everything. This SUCKS when you are in chase and can't even talk to the car just down the road.

Interoperability of about planning?
What planning was done before they moved frequencies?
What planning has been done since they moved frequencies?
What planning was done as part of the decision to move frequencies?

[jim202]

Many of the radio equipment companies are reluctant to come out with a low cost multi band radio.
There are a couple of reasons for this. The not so on the surface issue is type acceptance of the
radio to be operated on the part 90 frequencies. It cost money to get a certification for the radio to
be type accepted by the FCC. The second more pressing issue is the bottom line profit. If they
feel they are not making enough on each radio, press the market some more to be able to make
the high profit on each radio. The low cost radios don't make them nearly the margin that a top
of the line radio does.

You figure it out. Where would you put your effort. Let the customer cry and whine all they want,
unless the corporate office sees the dollar signs, that radio isn't going to be put on the production
line any time soon. Why do you think Thales has pushed so hard to be the first out the door with
a multi band radio. They knew that DHS would throw money at them to perfect it and make them
a good profit.

Motorola had no choice but to speed to the market a portable to be in competition with Thales.
Now there is hype about a multi band mobile radio. No date yet on when they will reach the
end user. I would expect that the first agency that gets them will play hell getting all the bugs
out of them per the normal Motorola way.

Kenwood, ICOM and Daniels look like they will have something workable shortly. We will just
have to sit back and see what happens.

My bet that the issue of interoperability will not be solved with the new equipment. There is just
such a strong mind set of the department heads at many agencies, that we will be in the hardware
will work, but the management won't on interoperability.

Personally I think it will take the state government and the feds cutting funding to these hard
stuck in the mud department heads if they don't start realizing that they are the source of many
of the interoperability issues. They will have to start changing their ways for a nationwide
ability to have agencies able to communicate together.

Am I a supporter for a single nation wide single band radio system? Don't think that will ever work
over the whole country. There is too much of a topography difference from one part of the country
to another to make a single system play. Like out in the plains states, you would need way too
many sites to cover the ground with too few towns and people in between to make it financially
practical. A 700 MHz system in the plains and the mountains is hard to build to provide good
coverage at a reasonable cost. They would work in the population centers, but as you move
away, the cost and coverage issues bring the cost way too high.

The best one can do today is to have some sort of gateway so you don't have a dispatcher
translation issue from one person to the next and then on to the grunt in the field. Your much
better off to hear the transmission direct and not subject it to the garble that comes out the
end of a multi person transmission relay. Plus you don't overload the poor dispatch person
with the traffic. Maybe someday in the future, a solution can be had. But today, I think
your going to be stuck with what we have for the next several years and radio system
replacement cycle. The funding won't let much for new technology jump ahead with today's
money issues that just about all agencies are faced with.

I am open to new ideas and suggestions. Just remember, someone has to pay for all these
new ideas and toys. The poor strapped tax payer has had about enough for now.

Jim

Originally Posted by 776

Why can't they make public safety radios like ham radios that have multiband and receive on 2 are more band at the same time at a reasonable price? We have done mutual aid with ajoining county for years both counties on vhf and both counties had the other in their radio. Now the ajoining county went to uhf p-25 now we don't have a clue what going on in the other county and sure can't talk to them. Now we have to have dispatch to relay by phone on everything. This SUCKS when you are in chase and can't even talk to the car just down the road.

776