RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Georgia Radio Discussion Forum

Georgia Radio Discussion Forum Forum for discussing Radio Information in the State of Georgia.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2013, 5:16 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 171
Default New Radio Systems? Interoperbility?

With all the new radio systems that are not 800, are these guys adding the vtacs or utacs to their radios? (of course depending on their band)
I have looked at 4 different counties that moved mototurbo (DMR) and yet to see utacs in them.
They certainly have no problem handling the additional channels, and the programmers/dealers should actually push this.
This day and time, post narrowband/reband should be no reason to pick up a radio in the state of Georgia and not have interop channels in it.
(took almost 20 years to get the 800 community together to get them in all the radios (itacs/8tacs))
NIFOG
https://www.dhs.gov/national-interop...erations-guide
Stan
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
        
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2013, 7:04 PM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 2,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHIFTLT View Post
With all the new radio systems that are not 800, are these guys adding the vtacs or utacs to their radios? (of course depending on their band)
I have looked at 4 different counties that moved mototurbo (DMR) and yet to see utacs in them.
They certainly have no problem handling the additional channels, and the programmers/dealers should actually push this.
This day and time, post narrowband/reband should be no reason to pick up a radio in the state of Georgia and not have interop channels in it.
(took almost 20 years to get the 800 community together to get them in all the radios (itacs/8tacs))
NIFOG
https://www.dhs.gov/national-interop...erations-guide
Stan
I think it should be a REQUIREMENT, if you put up 8-TAC repeaters, there should be a corresponding linked in U-TAC and V-TAC repeater co-located with it.

This is the only way, sans buying pricey multi-band, mutli-format subscriber radios, to add wide area coverage end to end interoperability for mutual aid.
__________________
All opinions, statements, posts, or information made public are those exclusively of the author, and not those of his employer, contractors or associates.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2013, 1:42 AM
b7spectra's Avatar
EMS Dispatcher
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cobb County, GA
Posts: 3,270
Default

Shame we can't have systems like half the states do where the State itself owns it and everyone in the state subscribes to it. 1 frequency band, 1 statewide system - NAW! It would never work!
__________________


/
\/\|k.e

EMS Dispatcher/EMD Certified
http://icanhasdriverslicense.com
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2013, 5:38 AM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTS2000des View Post
I think it should be a REQUIREMENT, if you put up 8-TAC repeaters, there should be a corresponding linked in U-TAC and V-TAC repeater co-located with it.

This is the only way, sans buying pricey multi-band, mutli-format subscriber radios, to add wide area coverage end to end interoperability for mutual aid.
I went through trying to build something like this in real life. Some key issues that we had to identify:
1) VHF I/O frequencies are simplex. It wasn't until much later that the frequencies were paired up and assigned alternate CTCSS codes for inputs.
2) How, exactly, does your community want to use "interoperability?" My vision (as a former practitioner in the field) was that "interoperability" was more useful as simplex in the field, not through a repeater. I had some clowns from a San Diego consulting group come in and push repeaterization, which pretty much married any "interoperability" to the footprint of the repeater, and nothing more.
3) Alternate VHF frequencies were required (at the time, there was no repeaterization standard for the VCALL/VTAC frequencies). Finding a VHF frequency pair, let alone a single frequency, that worked for about 5,000 square miles (8 counties) was impossible. Ultimately, after much time was wasted with the various databases, NTIA resources were used... only one of which was made available to "the locals."

Sometimes the more simpler use of these frequencies is probably the best. If cross-band coverage is needed, it can be field-deployed. Pardon me for putting quotes around interoperability, because it meant one thing to these consultants (most of whom have never seen a real radio before) and to us (who have come off the street having had responder roles going back some).

For a model of doing it "right" (at substantial cost and support) check out Kansas City MARC's RAMBIS system, which does cross-band linking on these frequencies with voting receivers and simulcast transmitters.

How do the Georgia MRD frequencies play into interoperability?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2013, 6:23 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,796
Default

Your missing the more important issue. It's called politics. If the chief of the department has never been educated in the advantages of radio interoperability, it will never happen. In fact I have run across many department heads that have the impression that if they need mutual aid, those coming in will operate on the local channels or not at all.

My travels around the country working on interoperability gateways, takes me into some real interesting political situations. Some of these department heads just won't work with their neighbors. They will not work with the fire department if they are law enforcement. When you run into these type of locations, there will never be radio interoperability. Doesn't matter even if they have this new do all trunking system. It was laid down early on that fire will not talk to police and police will only talk to them selves.

What it boils down to is until the current warm bodies at the top management positions leave, there will never be a radio solution. Like has always been said before, we have the technology, but we can't fix politics.

I put it a little more bluntly and say we can't fix stupid.
__________________
Jim
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
        
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2013, 8:14 AM
cifd64's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern Passaic County, NJ
Posts: 497
Default

How do you affect change? One retirement at a time. Having been on the govt side for many years and now working for local radio shop, I can tell you that the term interoperability is a tactic used by salesmen to push more expensive /\/\ equipment and leave out the I/O portion of the programming. Every time I get a batch, I ask to include the I/O's, but in this area, the powers that be have taken advantage of the Feds lack of oversight and made their own tweaks to U-Call/Tac repeaters. They don't want ANYONE they don't know (like) having access. When I worked for a rather large City operation, just getting permission to program the re-banded I/O's was an act of Congress. Some groups just don't feel like jumping through the hoops.

I will look for it, but there was an article about the "Myth of Interoperability." Well written expose about the lack of coordination after 9-11 when it came to communications.

So, like I said. One retirement at a time, eventually we can get there.
__________________
“You have the NIFOG – that’s your interoperable communications plan.”
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2013, 9:09 AM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,555
Default

You can throw money at a situation and create this technologically capable system that supposedly does anything and everything (FirstNet is building just such an animal). But it doesn't address the sociopolitical aspect of interoperability. So long as one group feels another is not part of the same team, or they have no need to cooperate with another agency working at the same incident, there will be no interoperability, regardless of equipment. This could even be within the same agency - sworn/civilian, special agent/analyst, suppression/EMS. Retirement is one thing, but training and rapport-building is also necessary. I've always looked at public safety as a team sport, but can point to a number of articles and personal knowledge where things have almost come to a fist fight between different agencies at a common incident.

On the other hand, not everyone needs to talk to everyone everywhere. John Powell (one of the active proponents of the concept of interoperability) had this definition of interoperability that choked things down to a more focused, more local item (and I can't exactly remember the terms he used - gee - maybe it's in a NPSTC or SAFECOM document). Basically, you have to have the need to speak with someone. That has evolved into the ICS structure. There's a special term for having everyone on the same channel: a "Charlie Foxtrot." So long as a section, division, or other group within the ICS structure can communicate with each other, and its section chief (or whatever title) can communicate with "Command" (and there is only one of those for the incident) - not necessarily on the same frequency as the section/division/zone/whatever, that's what's needed within a scalable environment.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2013, 10:45 AM
cifd64's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern Passaic County, NJ
Posts: 497
Default

I think this sums it up...

South park who's in charge here - YouTube
__________________
“You have the NIFOG – that’s your interoperable communications plan.”
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2013, 7:23 AM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 2,057
Default

the main reason why we don't have the flashy, pricey statewide radio system is simple: the state doesn't have the budget for it.

Back in the 1990s, the GTA had a hard-on to put up a statewide 800MHz (then analog Motorola SmartZone) network. They actually built a handful of core sites: Atlanta (the old 2E2F system ID), Athens, and Forsyth. The pipe dream was to get all the 152 counties to pitch in the rest and build out the sites.

When the reality check came in, and the true price was hammered out, it was somewhere in the 250 million dollar mark. This was for street level mobile coverage. This was also about 1/4-1/3 of the state's entire budget. The project was scrapped.

The state seems to now want that radio system but doesn't want to pay for it. So now you have pockets of 700/800 digital trunking systems peppering the state, and everyone else is on VHF/UHF of some sort. The majority of state law enforcement still uses VHF with 700/800 in those respective areas.

I don't see this changing. The cost to build out a statewide radio system, especially at 700/800MHz which is what a certain vendor pushes, is just too high.

I think a logical requirement is that all law enforcement vehicles should be equipped with VHF analog radios, not just for "interoperability" but for backup. Nothing can beat a good 50 watt VHF mobile radio for "when all else fails", no infrastructure? No problem. A solid 8-10 miles or more is possible with this setup in most topography. Go the top of a nice hill and you have coverage for 25 miles.

Average street price of a good quality LMR 50 watt VHF is no more than $400 installed. If you pay more, you're agency is getting robbed.

This is what should be mandated, not pricey statewide radio systems that require ludicrous amounts of backhaul and a staff of technicians to maintain.
__________________
All opinions, statements, posts, or information made public are those exclusively of the author, and not those of his employer, contractors or associates.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2013, 7:53 AM
rapidcharger's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The land of broken calculators.
Posts: 1,453
Default

From the sounds of it, vhf hi band radios are still in most of the LE vehicles, if not all of them and they do get used occasionally. That sounds like a good solution to me but it doesn't seem to satisfy the appetite that certain elected officials have for buying expensive radio systems in the name of interoperability. (Then promptly encrypting everything thereby canceling out any interoperability short of the VHF)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:57 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 120
Default

I think the original 800 state system was to provide coverage inside of I-285. Then the plan in 1996 was to have the "Olympic banana" that had coverage from Atlanta, down through Macon and into Savanah. Don't think that ever happened. The state had meetings back then to get everyone in LE tuned up for the 800 statewide buildout...
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2013, 11:52 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,796
Default

You are all describing Motorola's plans on how to wear out the path to the bank. The sales force is primed to prey on any agency that will listen and is stupid enough to not have a technical person to act as moderator and adviser.

This is why radio interoperability has been such a hard sell to agencies that went to a new trunking system. They are led to believe that there is almost an unlimited amount of talkgroups that can be put on this new trunking system. They are told you don't need a different channel for each agency. "Just use our new trunking system and all your rado problems will go away".

Same thing with the state wide trunking systems that have come out of a sales person's dreams. No one tells the agencies what the bottom line will be and exactly how many sites it will take. "Oh, you want all the sites to be able to talk at the same time, you didn't tell us that when we proposed the system". "That will cost you an extra 1 million per site for that to work".

How many times have we seen this ploy used on new systems?

Back to reality. The major problem in inter agency communications is the politics. Many department heads don't work well with each other. These department heads don't understand the functionality of the radios they have. Then the big thing is these same department heads have no clue what radio channels should get programmed into their radios.

Yesterday, with all the action going on in the DC area at the Navy yard with the shooting, our old problem of one agency couldn't talk to another agency came up. With all the effort and money that has been thrown into the "National Capital Region" radio systems, you would think that this problem was taken care of.

Then the issue of who was in charge and who was the incident commander for the activities at the Navy yard came into play. I was surprised that there was not more issues with the radio systems with what was going on there. Have to wait for the after action reports to get the who picture.

But I do have to pat the National Park Service on the back for a fine job. Their radio system was not a jumble of people yelling and having non intelligible transmissions like the Boston police right after the bombings. You could understand just about every transmission. People were not walking over each other and yelling for this or that to be done. Calm seemed to be a consideration by most that were on the Park service radio.
__________________
Jim

Last edited by jim202; 09-17-2013 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2013, 3:59 PM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim202 View Post
You are all describing Motorola's plans on how to wear out the path to the bank. The sales force is primed to prey on any agency that will listen and is stupid enough to not have a technical person to act as moderator and adviser.

This is why radio interoperability has been such a hard sell to agencies that went to a new trunking system. They are led to believe that there is almost an unlimited amount of talkgroups that can be put on this new trunking system. They are told you don't need a different channel for each agency. "Just use our new trunking system and all your rado problems will go away".

Same thing with the state wide trunking systems that have come out of a sales person's dreams. No one tells the agencies what the bottom line will be and exactly how many sites it will take. "Oh, you want all the sites to be able to talk at the same time, you didn't tell us that when we proposed the system". "That will cost you an extra 1 million per site for that to work".

How many times have we seen this ploy used on new systems?

Back to reality. The major problem in inter agency communications is the politics. Many department heads don't work well with each other. These department heads don't understand the functionality of the radios they have. Then the big thing is these same department heads have no clue what radio channels should get programmed into their radios.
Jim, the modern sales force, especially the direct sales force, will end run any competent technical advisor who is perceived as a threat to their carte blanche run of the budget and then steamroller them if the politicians are in any way receptive of them or doubtful of their employee. Sometimes it's that "If you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't be working for us" thing. There's not that pride and rapport-building like it was in the Galvin days.

With all the things happening yesterday, I just forgot to listen in. Sounds like I missed a lesson in how things should be done. Going to have to go to Broadcastify and see if there's an archive.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2013, 4:58 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 171
Default

With all the comments, Basically the reason the interop freq.'s are not in the radio is politics??? (and this is free???) I think it comes down to:
Educate the Chief's, (so they will ask them to be programmed),
Educate the Salesman, (so he will suggest the programming ),
Educate the Tech (programmer), Most of the time he says this is what is included in the programming package, while setting up templates.,
Educate the public safety officer (LE/Fire/EMS), and he will ask the Chiefs to get the freq's in the radios.
There is no reason not to have the freq's in the radios in 2013, after narrowband/reband.
Radios are capable.
No expense.
No Brainer.

You do not have to have repeaters for the scene to work, you do not have to have everyone on the same channel, (same channel, same work)

NIFOG
https://www.dhs.gov/national-interop...erations-guide
Stan
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2013, 6:06 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,796
Default

Unless you have some technical people at the scene of an on going incident, there will generally be radio chaos. Radio users get use to using repeaters for their daily use and don't even remember there are simplex channels that will work much better for local incident communications. Plus it keeps the world from being able to listen in on what is going on. Another plus, is that it off loads this incident traffic from your normal operational channels.

Then there is always the concern about being able to have recordings of the radio traffic at the incident. With today's equipment abilities, there is no reason that audio recording of the radio traffic can't be made from the mobile command vehicle. In fact there is at least one radio interoperability gateway that has this ability built in. It allows you to record all the radio traffic on all the radios attached to it. You just have to turn that feature on as needed.

Getting back to the sales team and the actions they take, it's all in the perception that can be applied. Look at it this way, when the department heads are being shown a presentation, the next step is to get them to sign the contract. The sales force doesn't want to allow any time for meetings with the end users, technical radio geeks, the radio shop or a consultant. Push, push push and don't allow the momentum to slow down.

If it's getting close to meal time, everyone is invited to go have a meal on the radio company. The head sales person will sit next to the agency leader and bend an ear all during the meal. This is a well rehearsed game done time and time again. The sales team knows well that if there is any delay in getting a contract signed, the details of what has been presented will be gone over with a fine tooth comb by the technical people, IF THE AGENCY IS SMART. The sales force doesn't want this to happen.
__________________
Jim

Last edited by jim202; 09-18-2013 at 6:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2013, 7:34 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Bedford,Ma
Posts: 800
Default

In my city all government agencies have switched to Mototrbo except for police and fire where they just switched to P25. the radio techs were told to program the utacs in repeater mode and also in simplex in all police cars and all fire apparatus and ambulances and all other city vehicles as well.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2013, 8:10 AM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim202 View Post
Unless you have some technical people at the scene of an on going incident, there will generally be radio chaos. Radio users get use to using repeaters for their daily use and don't even remember there are simplex channels that will work much better for local incident communications. Plus it keeps the world from being able to listen in on what is going on. Another plus, is that it off loads this incident traffic from your normal operational channels.

Then there is always the concern about being able to have recordings of the radio traffic at the incident. With today's equipment abilities, there is no reason that audio recording of the radio traffic can't be made from the mobile command vehicle. In fact there is at least one radio interoperability gateway that has this ability built in. It allows you to record all the radio traffic on all the radios attached to it. You just have to turn that feature on as needed.

Getting back to the sales team and the actions they take, it's all in the perception that can be applied. Look at it this way, when the department heads are being shown a presentation, the next step is to get them to sign the contract. The sales force doesn't want to allow any time for meetings with the end users, technical radio geeks, the radio shop or a consultant. Push, push push and don't allow the momentum to slow down.

If it's getting close to meal time, everyone is invited to go have a meal on the radio company. The head sales person will sit next to the agency leader and bend an ear all during the meal. This is a well rehearsed game done time and time again. The sales team knows well that if there is any delay in getting a contract signed, the details of what has been presented will be gone over with a fine tooth comb by the technical people, IF THE AGENCY IS SMART. The sales force doesn't want this to happen.
Your first comment is always the root cause of a communications-related after-action ding. Under ICS, the communications unit leader is a subordinate position to the logistics section chief. Logistics is busy "making things happen" (if ICS has actually been stood up... but let's say it is...). So, the CUL (not even COM-L yet - and IF you have a CUL) is waiving his arms trying to coordinate things, but has no authority. A lot of time, that authority is spent in pre-planning because he or she will never get called out to an active incident unless it coincides with work, and even then, getting called out is a maybe. The COM-L needs to be a staff position with a line going directly to the IC, with the delegated authority to make things happen, or make things NOT happen (like multiple "gateways" driving up and being activated indiscriminately). He or she also has to be involved in the planning and implementation, and be a part of the briefing. And, reality is that too many incidents are just managed by "show up and do the best you can" mode, followed by the "we did the best we could with what we had" press briefing. So, it's a receding battle being the "radioman" and trying to corral responders. Especially if they know a (precious very) little about radio. After all, radio isn't as complicated as taking a weapon apart and fixing it, calculating nozzle pressure up 15 stories, or trying to recognize torsades de pointes on the monitor (then trying to remember what the protocol for it is). As one rubber gun lieutenant asked me (with his hands behind his head and feet up on the desk... ), "How hard could it be?"

Field logging is extremely important for on-scene communication, but I can't imagine many agencies have it, unless they use infrastructure to communicate and that channel or talkgroup is recorded, or that they have a vehicle with a logging recorder installed. I haven't seen many, and that's bad considering storage prices have fallen tremendously and a "logging recorder" can be as simple as software and having enough input ports on the device. Still, this is a poor excuse to have to migrate adequate simplex communication to deficient infrastructure that must now be substantially "improved" to make the accommodation, especially for in-building coverage of high rise construction or other structures with high attenuation characteristics (tunnels, hospitals, parking garages, etc.). Simplex rocks. And, it takes away from the potential bottom line because it's not infrastructure dependent.

The other tactic that follows this circus of end-runs and deal closers is the low-ball. Finance directors love that. Politicians use car metaphors (imagine a man with an H. Ross Perot-like voice saying) "You guys want that Cadillac radio system when this here Yugo will get you there and back and serve the community well in doing so." And then you get the bonus plan, like a $2M 1 channel VHF voted, simulcast repeater system on a proprietary digital mode with links spanning 13 - 26 miles over 2.4 GHz (it worked for 4 years before one thing after another...). Sites deliberately omitted only to surface once the manufacturer and the community are married, recurring support/maintenance costs left off the balance sheet (especially by third parties, like IT equipment manufacturers - "Oh, wait a minute, you guys didn't tell me that these people need $135,000 a year to upload new firmware and it's above contract!"), inclusion of end-of-life products that cannot support upgrade or will be unsupported during the expected life cycle of the new system, and a number of nickel and dime items that will assure a steady revenue stream for at least the upcoming decade. That's like "the other shop" from 30 years ago low-balling an install contract and having their "technician" show up with his rusty box of random hardware.

Nasty to be sure.

Jim, dare we even touch the item of spectrum efficiency or selling a system fully knowing there aren't frequency resources available to implement it in the frequency band they sold the equipment in?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions