Multi Band Radio Pilot Report

[n2ops]

http://www.firstresponder.gov/Operat...t%20Report.pdf

A two-year study of interoperability by the Department of Homeland Security using multi-band radios for public safety found many successes, but also generated age-old complaints about large and heavy portables, too long antennas, high cost and short battery life.

[blantonl]

Interoperability is probably better handled at the infrastructure level for major population areas. For remote/rural areas and large firefighting operations there is definitely a market for multi-band portables.

Additionally, for traveling teams such as FEMA, rescue groups etc, multiband portables are a great tool.

It would be good to see APCO come up with a common standard for delivering programming information to a radio, so that anyone with a capable radio could immediately be provisioned with the necessary system/frequency/talkgroup information required for the incident without having to go through a complete "radio shop" type programming experience.

[gesucks]

Originally Posted by blantonl

It would be good to see APCO come up with a common standard for delivering programming information to a radio, so that anyone with a capable radio could immediately be provisioned with the necessary system/frequency/talkgroup information required for the incident without having to go through a complete "radio shop" type programming experience.

This is already being done by the NPSTC PCR Working Group. We are well on the way with buy in from most of the major radio makers

[blantonl]

For those that don't know:

NPSTC = National Public Safety Telecommunications Council

Edit to add color:

NPSTC is a federation of organizations whose mission is to improve public safety communications and interoperability through collaborative leadership. Support provided by the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), and the National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Emergency Communications (OEC). Points of view or opinions expressed in this site are those of the originators and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

PCR = Radio Programmable Compatible Requirements working group.

Good to hear this is in progress and already a potential viable solution.

[N2JDS]

Come on Lindsey, you know what you really mean is a 2-way radio with built in wi-fi and GPS that can access the RR data base to program for that area.

[902]

It isn't necessarily APCO's place to develop a standard for OTAP when P25 has been allowed to take on a life of its own and is well beyond its stewardship. That said, other organizations like NPSTC and NFPA are working on different elements of subscriber equipment. Perhaps TIA should pick that ball up even though progress on P25 has been like building the pyramids and it is already technologically surpassed by competing protocols before it even achieved its goals at market proliferation.

If we were to see a standardized OTAP, I'd expect R&D dollars to be placed into LTE equipment rather than LMR architecture. There are already several OTAP schemes out, and they are all unique to their manufacture thus adulterating any standard.

As for interoperability, it exists in many forms. Infrastructure interoperability is on a millions scale. LTE infrastructure is on a billions scale. Field subscriber interoperability - or, as I've referred to it as "brown guy to blue guy interoperability" is on a thousands scale and (with unlikely support from the manufacturing community for affordable mid-tiered models) possibly a hundreds scale. At the end of the day, infrastructure is vulnerable and "me to you" at a common scene can be achieved in a disparate band environment with a multiple band platform. That's most economically achieved from user to user with the least hardware in between. That is also the least vulnerable means of doing it. It is, however, a revenue-driven market with the pushed solution being the one that brings in the most ROI. If multiband emerged sooner, say the early 00's, an entire industry of infrastructure-based solutions from matrices to multi-million dollar switches would have been negated.

[szron]

Originally Posted by N2JDS

Come on Lindsey, you know what you really mean is a 2-way radio with built in wi-fi and GPS that can access the RR data base to program for that area.

10/10 idea

But for real...
Wouldn't it be nice for APCO to develop a nation-wide system and frequency directory for such applications?
And then distribute universal codeplugs to agencies to provision radios on the scene.

Technology is here, it has been here for a while now actually, we need some legislation though and good faith.

There is a oversight of 911 PSAP points, how it works let's leave for another discussion.

A oversight of all wireless operations on a application level (FCC only cares what freqs you use why haven't you narrowbanded yet) would be a solution. But again that's more things to pay for and it would need somebody that knows what they are doing.

[ecps92]

or RR Reads all the Code Plugs so the Channel plans and correct Tones are in the RRDB Good Call Jeff

Originally Posted by N2JDS

Come on Lindsey, you know what you really mean is a 2-way radio with built in wi-fi and GPS that can access the RR data base to program for that area.

[gesucks]

Originally Posted by szron

10/10 idea

But for real...
Wouldn't it be nice for APCO to develop a nation-wide system and frequency directory for such applications?
And then distribute universal codeplugs to agencies to provision radios on the scene.

There is something in place that was designed for this, it is called CASM. It is very secure and run by the feds and DOD. The problem is that the funding has been cut so future growth has been bad. The other problem is that you can not force people to use it. So for some areas of the country the info is amazing and everything you need, other areas nothing. WIth the work the PCR group is doing, we will be much closer to a working database

[ecps92]

CASM is only as good as the data in, then also validated. IF it is never reviewed for accuracy and/or currently valid... well

Also, so much Border info is not cross-filled for adjoining states.

So much was put in with Output [same as RR] Frequency/Tones
and many times submitted by an Administrator vs a Real Radio Tech.

Bad in = Bad out

Your almost better to get a copy of your state FOG for Interop

Originally Posted by gesucks

There is something in place that was designed for this, it is called CASM. It is very secure and run by the feds and DOD. The problem is that the funding has been cut so future growth has been bad. The other problem is that you can not force people to use it. So for some areas of the country the info is amazing and everything you need, other areas nothing. WIth the work the PCR group is doing, we will be much closer to a working database

[902]

Originally Posted by gesucks

There is something in place that was designed for this, it is called CASM. It is very secure and run by the feds and DOD. The problem is that the funding has been cut so future growth has been bad. The other problem is that you can not force people to use it. So for some areas of the country the info is amazing and everything you need, other areas nothing. WIth the work the PCR group is doing, we will be much closer to a working database

CASM is like any other grant-driven program. There was tons of work getting it off the ground and it never completely (for the lack of a better word) "launched" into full acceptance. Like some of the specialty equipment procured during UASI that sits rusting in the weed field behind a fire station, if there's no sustainment monies, it's destined for the rust heap. The only lesson we should learn from the last 10 years is that mutual planning should occur between neighboring jurisdictions and higher-level cooperators - and should have been occurring all along. It should probably be noted that when a prestigious Southern California consulting group visited a certain part of the Midwest to kick off their CASM implementation, circa 2006, (which the locals were given NO access to at the time), they were populating their data from the RR database (that's right, from here). As a mutual friend of Bill's and mine always says, "Your mileage may vary."

[jeatock]

As a COML and dealer, rural interoperable programming is my biggest headache.

Everyone knows the Simplex/downlink frequency, but sometimes the uplink freq into a system is a complete mystery. When the license holder has multiple VHF pairs figuring out which is which can be a pain. Don't even start me on those mysterious top-secret squelch codes, or the dealers who like to keep them a proprietary secret so 'their' agency can't go elsewhere.

I have been working with techs who have received 'accurate' information from agency managers, only to find out nothing works. In one case, the Sheriff gave us interoperability information for a system that expired four years ago- the equipment had become dumpster fodder long before that.

CASM is great in concept, but I've found the RR Database to be far more accurate. The RR members keep it that way. To be useful, CASM information needs to be available. In my experience getting into CASM is next to impossible, and has never been anything useful in the time frame needed to set up an incident communications plan. Even worse, much CASM information was put in wrong, or has never been updated. In the late 2k's my local ESDA coordinator sent me a list of local channels for review. I asked what he needed the information for, and he said it was a secret. Secret from who? I designed, built and maintain those systems.

Who are we kidding? Any terrorist with access to the ULS and a couple hundred dollars in equipment can reverse engineer any communications system in a couple of days. When it does hit the fan us lowly techs and COML's tasked with making it all better spend hours begging, pleading and trial-and-erroring to make Interoperability function. CASM is the top-secret proprietary version of RR, with the dis-advantages of being so exclusive as to be useless, and administered by folks who don't have a clue. Another example of government at its finest.

Infrastructural interoperability horror story and an example of how agency management really works: Several years ago I was 'volunteered' into a substantial incident that required temporary interoperable communications. A unique and 'special' system was to be brought in to communicate between neighboring agencies that simply didn't have the neighbor's channels in their radios. "Others" mandated that temporary repeaters be set up at a high ground location, but where terrain shielded much of the incident from the repeaters. The optimum location was three miles away on lower ground, and had direct line of site to the entire affected area. Agency "Managers" balked at the optimum location because it was literally 300 yards across the state line. "We can't cover that state!" was heard more often than not for two days. Propagation mapping showing my suggested optimal location actually impinged less across the border was summarily dismissed. Their official and irrefutable management policy was that RF energy observes state boundaries.

I urge (aka require by any nefarious or suitable means) that my client agencies keep an accurate and up to date ICS217 Communication Resource Worksheet and generic ICS205 Incident Communications Plan for their region, and to share that information with their neighbors. When it hits the fan, having those two documents available (and accurate) can shave many hours off of an Incident Communications setup.

Having published and enforced regional communications standards is also important, but in many cases a pipe dream.

[szron]

Originally Posted by jeatock

Everyone knows the Simplex/downlink frequency, but sometimes the uplink freq into a system is a complete mystery.

Isn't the rpt shift standardized?

[ecps92]

Not in VHF [High or Low] and many areas for UHF tend to use a different Tone for the input [to prevent squirrels]

Originally Posted by szron

Isn't the rpt shift standardized?

[mmckenna]

Originally Posted by jeatock

Having published and enforced regional communications standards is also important, but in many cases a pipe dream.

I agree. I maintain the information for our agency, and I keep in close communications with the local county run radio shop. Open communications between agencies in really an amazingly useful tool, but all too often missed. I have the county master list, including all the agencies, and we both work to keep our individual parts updated. Being a more rural and mountainous county, VHF FM is pretty much the common ground amongst everyone. Having the newer radios with lots of programmable channels makes it easy to load everything in to ease interoperability. MOU's and training reinforce it.

While the lack of cooperation on this in some areas is troubling, I think the reason for that is an attempt to keep some level of communications security. While we know that a person with a little bit of knowledge and a scanner can figure most of it out, the guys in charge, which usually are not radio people, don't understand that. They want to closely guard their "secrets" in the belief that it will guarantee comsec. Obviously, not the case.

One thing that has changed over the years is that where the radio shop used to be it's own group, they have now been consolidated under the IT group in some areas. That happened with us a few years ago, and while it is helpful in some ways, the people I work for have zero understanding of LMR radio. What I do see as an issue, sometimes, is that the IT guys will install WiFi, and assume that makes them "radio experts". That is't the case. I also run our PBX, and when VoIP hit the scene, every IT guy out there was suddenly a telecom expert. Again, not the case. When I spent a few hundred thousand on a new 800MHz trunked system, a few of the IT guys were really upset. They didn't understand why that money wasn't put into the WiFi system, since we could "just use WiFi radios" to communicate. They just don't get it.

Maintaining open communications between agencies is really important. Having people in charge that either understand what they are in charge of, or are at least intelligent enough to get out of the way is key, but often not the case.

Interoperability shouldn't be this difficult, but unfortunately there are so many different takes on what "interoperability is" that it's a real mess. As someone on here has as a signature, Interoperability isn't a technology, but a mindset". People that don't have the minds for this stuff want to fix every problem with technology, rather than common sense.

[rapidcharger]

Ah... common sense.
America's other national deficit.


Upon closer examination of the sizes and weights, 8" tall and 2 lbs isn't exactly reaching for the stars.

[mmckenna]

Originally Posted by rapidcharger

Ah... common sense.
America's other national deficit.


Upon closer examination of the sizes and weights, 8" tall and 2 lbs isn't exactly reaching for the stars.

No, not much different than the hand held radios 30 years ago. On the other hand, I had a Thales on loan for a trial, and it got to be a pain in the rear, quite literally, pretty quick. Most are accustomed to the newer smaller form factor radios, and going back in time to a 2 pound brick on your belt, even if it does do multi band, meets with a lot of criticism.

[902]

Originally Posted by mmckenna

While the lack of cooperation on this in some areas is troubling, I think the reason for that is an attempt to keep some level of communications security. While we know that a person with a little bit of knowledge and a scanner can figure most of it out, the guys in charge, which usually are not radio people, don't understand that. They want to closely guard their "secrets" in the belief that it will guarantee comsec. Obviously, not the case.

This is one of the forces that drives the FirstNet initiative and the various beliefs that multiple levels of embedded encryption need to exist within the network, subscriber device, and end-to-end between the host and clients. The reality is that COMSEC is not required for anything but surveillance and tactical operations. Seems to me there is more emphasis on this than network survivability or redundancy.

Originally Posted by rapidcharger

Upon closer examination of the sizes and weights, 8" tall and 2 lbs isn't exactly reaching for the stars.

As for bricky radios, this is the baggage that having gone digital and the perception that it all has to be high-end has brought. We all know that a multiband platform can and has been built into very small and lightweight packages by several of the Japanese amateur radio manufacturers - even with AMBE digital modulation (i.e., "D-STAR"). With different firmware limiting frequency agility and adopting to Part 90 channel centers, there is no reason why this technology could not have been implemented to form a much more cost-effective solution. Except that these manufacturers saw no business case in doing so and the manufacturers who have most of the U.S. market share developed only top tier products for this niche. I see no reason to have a high density multicolor display (that has a proclivity to get broken) when the device is only being used in a voice or low-speed data application. In fact, in a fire, I couldn't see at all. But why ground ourselves in practicality when things can be "nifty" and expensive and agencies will pay for them?

In the end, I predict these devices will become so top-heavy and impractical (like having a .40 weapon that also includes a built-in multi-tool, TASER, and webcam built into it) that field guys will be carrying around FRS radios to talk to each other without the overhead.

[jeatock]

This country is rapidly dividing into two camps: The metro areas with all the wiz-bang toys, and the rest of the country who had a hard time funding the upgrade to $400 narrrow-band analog radios. The latter is probably the simplest to set up interoperability. Local agencies in a region are usually on the same band, and have no problem pre-programming their entire fleet to share. Remembering to and how to and share in the heat of the moment is their biggest problem.

I agree with the statement that inter-band interoperability is best conducted with fixed infrastructure bridges and gateways. The fallacy of that is that those bridges and gateways are sometimes difficult to set up, and are never in the right place or established in time to be of value. Those places that do have them seem to forget that they have the capability when they need it, how to do it, or are hampered by bureaucratic restrictions to activating them. Maybe 5% of the country has that capability. Funding for the remaining 95% isn't likely.

My state has issued a single complex radio to most agencies for 'interoperability'. Since in my experience most rural responders view radios as "Black box; push to talk, let go to listen" those fancy interoperable radios with all the buttons and menu-driven features are dust-catchers left back at the house. At best they are in the dispatch center requiring the single overworked telecommunicator to manually relay critical information between her every-day troops and the big boys who have come to help.

Interoperability is a necessity, but will not be fixed by simply throwing large sums of tax dollars at it. The major interoperability problems happen when the heavily funded big boys move to a complex system and expect everyone else to do the same. 99.9% of rural agencies still successfully conduct their business on a one or two local channels. The feeling from out in the weeds is that since the big boys got all the funding and have all of the cool radios, they should be the ones with the capability to talk "down" to their backwards rural neighbors.

For much of the country multi-format radios are not practical to be carried by every responder on a daily basis. Size, weight, complexity and cost make it unrealistic. How badly does a firefighter on the wet end of a hose need to be able to communicate directly with the State EOC anyway? When multi-band radios are issued they are best put in the hands of those who have moved to complex system and have a legitimate need to talk down to the little people in the weeds.

There is still a lot to be said for the old saying that every white helmet comes with a radio for each hand.

Moral of the story: Interoperability has become 5% training, 5% preplanning, 5% equipment and 85% politics and bureaucracy.

Originally Posted by mmckenna

One thing that has changed over the years is that where the radio shop used to be it's own group, they have now been consolidated under the IT group in some areas.

I worked on a 'state job' last fall where the RF stuff was under control of the IT department. I feared the worst going in. Amazingly the IT guy gave me an "I dunno" and introduced me to senior Sgt. X.

Senior Sgt. X whirled his Rolodex (Gasp! Paper!) and produced a card with the frequency pairs, their names and uses, and the squelch codes. Showing me a pencil he stated: "My computer crashes all the time, but if my pencil breaks I can reboot it with a pocket knife."

Moral of the story: K.I.S.S!

[mmckenna]

Originally Posted by jeatock

Amazingly the IT guy gave me an "I dunno" and introduced me to senior Sgt. X.


Moral of the story: K.I.S.S!

It's very helpful when you can find someone that will admit they don't know. Worst stuff I run into is when someone "thinks" they know and won't give up.