RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Commercial and Professional Radio > Industry Discussion

Industry Discussion General discussion forum for commercial and professional radio technologies. This includes manufacturers not listed below.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 9:02 AM
wa8pyr's Avatar
Technischer Guru
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,357
Default The view from here

As a system administrator (800 MHz analog migrating to P25), COM-L and interoperability planner, this stuff is at the heart of what I do for a living every day.

Interoperability is not, as alleged earlier, simply a sales tool for manufacturers to use to sell more radios. It is and has for years (well before 9/11) been a major concern for first responders which manufacturers have used to their advantage like any good sales force, for which I can't fault them at all.

It's my opinion that at the very least, all agencies within a single county should be able to communicate with one another seamlessly and instantly without any intervention on someone else's part. No patching or cross-band repeating should be necessary, no carrying multiple single-band radios (or expensive multi-band radios), or fancy gadgets in the trucks, it should be seamless and instantaneous at the flip of a channel knob. Whether this happens on a simple analog VHF or UHF (or low-band!) repeater system, a shared local or regional trunked system or a big shared statewide system, everyone in a county should be on the same page.

The plain and simple fact is that, despite the claims of some who have posted in this thread that trunked systems aren't necessary and that the taxpayer (of whom I'm also one) is being soaked for no good reason, the RF spectrum (especially VHF and UHF) has finite resources under ever-increasing pressure, and there just aren't enough resources available for conventional systems to be effective for anything much larger than a rural area. Mid-size and urban areas have long realized that no matter what band they use, trunked systems provide a way to maximize effective use of those finite resources.

Yes, trunked systems cost more and digital trunked systems even more still, but with a standards-based system agencies have choices and can get the radio that suits their needs at a cost not much more than a good quality analog radio. Group purchasing brings the cost down still further. It might be a more expensive radio than the business grade radio some of you feel is perfectly acceptable for public safety use, but in my firefighting days I certainly wouldn't have wanted to carry one of those things into a burning building; it would probably melt before I did and certainly wouldn't survive the soaking it might get.

There is no "one size fits all" solution. It's up to each locale to determine their needs and the best use of their funding; if they determine that a NXDN or TRBO solution is the best fit for their funding, that's their decision. They'll still have to plan for how to communicate with surrounding counties, but if it works for them and allows them to seamlessly communicate with other agencies in their county, so be it. Even so, this is one reason shared regional and state systems are becoming more and more popular; its a way for everyone to get the communications resources they need, at a lower overall cost for everyone, with the added bonus of seamless interoperability.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter which technological solution a particular area chooses, as long the solution meets their needs and there are plans, policies and procedures in place and practiced, so that everybody can communicate when push comes to shove, as quickly and as easily as possible.

At it's heart (and has been mentioned earlier), interoperability is a state of mind. The agencies involved have to want to talk to each other, there need to be detailed plans in place for how to make it happen, and personnel have to be educated to make proper use of the tools and techniques. Most agencies do want to be able to communicate with their neighbors, and the need for it happens more often that some people might think. Unfortunately, technology is the easy part; it's the planning and education part that typically falls short.
__________________
Tom Swisher, WA8PYR
Lead Database Administrator
PSR500/Pro197/Pro2035+OS535
www.wa8pyr.info
If I PM you about a submission, please reply promptly or your submission may be rejected.

Last edited by wa8pyr; 01-07-2014 at 9:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 9:09 AM
GB1952's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: CUMBERLAND CO
Posts: 466
Default

WELL SAID
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 6:08 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Default

Another possibility of interoperability is Guest users on P25 Trunked systems.
I had a descussion with Motorola and FEMA during a few meetings.

My thought was, why can we not make it possible for users of other P25 systems that are not Linked via ISSI or other means. Be able to be a guest user on a system on allowed guest talkgroups or interop talkgroups. These users could be from across the country or another state or county coming to help during a major event.

We have national I/O's conventional, what about the possibility of Interop Talkgroups.

I can see the technical challenges, one part is the use of RID's instead of ESN's. ESN's would help solve the problem of possible ID conflicts. ESN's are already in the subscribers, but not currently used by the ZC for subscriber validation.

The other is Sytem ID, one soloution would be to have all P25 sytems broadcast a natinal IO System ID. That all subscribers would have by default.

Another idea is to have a set number of IO Talkgroup ID's that the system and radio would ignore the sys ID basically allowing subscribers access to only those IO TG's.

The systems administraor could disable or enable the talkgroups based on needs, or leave only one TG enabled such as an Calling IO TG. Or disable the feature all together for overlaping systems.

Of course it would be band dependant still.

But it seems to me that technically it should be possible, it would not overwhelm a system if Talkgroup Prority was setup correctly.

Imagine you as a responder from across the country or states away having the ability to go into a disaster area and be able to use the local trunked resourses that are already in place.

There is the possibilty of whakers programming there radio on these IO TG's, but a simple Inhibit will do the JOB nicley.

To me it hinges on the fact of the possible duplicate RID problem, I wish during development of APCO P25 P1 they would have specified ESN's be used personally. I would have made things much more secure and easier for system admins, never mind I/O on trunked systems.

A Full Spectrum scan set up to search for a CC when turned to one of the I/O TG's.

I have not thought thru alot of the technical aspects or challanges, just kinda of off the cuff thoughts.

What are you thoughts or suggestions?

Last edited by hitechRadio; 01-07-2014 at 6:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 7:15 PM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 1,835
Default

The problem with this is that trunking systems are CLOSED networks by design. And there are security concerns allowing anyone on the system in such a manner. Aside, this would assume that everyone system network core be at a certain release level, every subscriber radio from every vendor to support it, and this is just not practical.

You are also not taking into account that Harris and EFJ also sell P25 networks and they are quite different on the FNE side than Motorola.

What is practical is what has already been mentioned: conventional analog TAC repeaters patched in when needed. Every P25 radio is capable of operating on them. Every public safety radio should have the V/U/78 TAC channels programmed in a zone per the NIFOG.
__________________
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
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 8:25 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTS2000des View Post
The problem with this is that trunking systems are CLOSED networks by design. And there are security concerns allowing anyone on the system in such a manner. Aside, this would assume that everyone system network core be at a certain release level, every subscriber radio from every vendor to support it, and this is just not practical.

You are also not taking into account that Harris and EFJ also sell P25 networks and they are quite different on the FNE side than Motorola.

What is practical is what has already been mentioned: conventional analog TAC repeaters patched in when needed. Every P25 radio is capable of operating on them. Every public safety radio should have the V/U/78 TAC channels programmed in a zone per the NIFOG.
It appears you have ABSOLUTELY no ability to think outside the box.

Trunk systems are Closed by design, Duh. Glad you pointed that out! Did you even read what I wrote at all? You miss my point every time.

In no way would what I have said, allow the guest users the ability to use other TG's (TALKGROUPS in case your not sure what that is) on the system, only I/O TG'S could be used.
As far as Security it would be just as secure as conventional I/O channels, which has absolutely no security. Which is an advantage on a trunked system unlike conventional I/O's you can turn off the I/O TG's all together.

I do realize that the FNE (Fixed Network Equipment) just in case) varies from vendor to vendor.

I realize it would not work with current systems, but in the future!!!!!! possibly YES it could be a reality.

Obviously you have never experience a major disaster, requiring many different agencies.The limited number of I/O channels is not going to cut it. Except for maybe all of the available ones on 700 which are recommended to be APCO P25. And yes I know what the NIFOG (National Interoperabilty Field Operations Guide) says, and I do follow it and program radio's accordingly.

In my opinion it is not a bad idea, of course I have my opinion and you have yours.


Side note:

I just figured it out your one of those trolls, after reviewing your recent post on other threads it appears for the most part, this is just your personality.

Every one of you comments has been negative in some way on this thread, with an inability to have a constructive conversation. Unlike you, every one else has had constructive criticism on there comments.

Last edited by hitechRadio; 01-07-2014 at 8:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 9:05 PM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
It appears you have ABSOLUTELY no ability to think outside the box.

.
No, I do. It's just that my idea of "outside the box" is just that: OUTSIDE the walled garden idea you seem to have about all public safety being on ONE single, expensive to procure and maintain radio network. The pipe dream you seem to be obsessed with that, even others who administrate such networks have pointed out, are not practical nor affordable for every agency everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
Trunk systems are Closed by design, Duh. Glad you pointed that out! Did you even read what I wrote at all? You miss my point every time.

.
What is your point exactly? On one hand, you want everyone to pay to be on some closed network, then you want to open the gates wide open?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
I do realize that the FNE (Fixed Network Equipment) just in case) varies from vendor to vendor.

I realize it would not work with current systems, but in the future!!!!!! possibly YES it could be a reality.
Oh, of course. Future systems=more costly forklift upgrades, another 5-10 years from now then "everyone" (those who can AFFORD those costly upgrades) will be on that next level release...then what, it will be time for the next "upgrade".

You must be employed by some company who's name ends in "solutions".

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
Obviously you have never experience a major disaster, requiring many different agencies.The limited number of I/O channels is not going to cut it. Except for maybe all of the available ones on 700 which are recommended to be APCO P25. And yes I know what the NIFOG (National Interoperabilty Field Operations Guide) says, and I do follow it and program radio's accordingly.
I've been involved in coordinating special events in a major metro area for over 15 years, I work in a level 2 trauma center and have for over 5 years. I've been THE SOLE point of contact during many incidents, including a 200 year flood that required coordination among agencies in multiple jurisdictions.

Thanks for making assumptions about me. You don't know me, so leave the rest of your personal attacks to yourself. It just makes you sound like a child who doesn't like what someone says, so you attack the messenger instead.

I have provided facts that you cannot avoid facing. Even others in this thread have said the same things I have, yet you choose to make it personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
Side note:

I just figured it out your one of those trolls, after reviewing your recent post on other threads it appears for the most part, this is just your personality.

Every one of you comments has been negative in some way on this thread, with an inability to have a constructive conversation. Unlike you, every one else has had constructive criticism on there comments.
More personal attacks that have nothing to do with the merits of any arguments. I have not made any such attacks against you personally, just your ideas which I feel are shortsighted and obviously biased. They certainly aren't fact based, and aren't representative of the entire communications community.

You sir, started a thread. You asked questions. I and others provided answers.

Sorry they aren't the ones you like. They certainly aren't "troll attempts".

If you feel they are, then tell the mods about it and let them decide.

I think starting a post with open ended questions and then attacking responders because you don't like the on-topic answers is just exactly what you are complaining about.

Ironic isn't it? Pot meet kettle.
__________________
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
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 9:16 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
I just figured it out your one of those trolls, after reviewing your recent post on other threads it appears for the most part, this is just your personality.

Every one of you comments has been negative in some way on this thread, with an inability to have a constructive conversation. Unlike you, every one else has had constructive criticism on there comments.
Not that he needs a defender, but MTS2000des is a respected member of not only the radio hobbyist community, but also within his profession. His experience and integrity are recognized by many. Your foul-mouthed name calling and finger pointing is totally uncalled for and speaks to your lack of real world professional experience in the field you are discussing.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 9:43 PM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 1,835
Default

Thanks triptolemus.

I'd love to discuss this, but apparently thinking "outside the box" means everyone has to agree with hightech's narrow view of every agency operating a large interconnected ISSI linked 700/800 DTRS.

He has been told in this thread and others that this is not, nor ever will be, practical for many agencies across the country.

Others have said the same thing, including the Ohio admins. As you know I do not dislike trunking systems, I just don't think they are for everyone.

And the goal SHOULD be getting all public safety users to have a method of interconnecting what they need when they need it within their budgets and scale.

This truly means "thinking outside the box" and not just throwing pools of money at a single vendor for a large scale solution.

Not everyone has that kind of deep pocket to dip into. In my state we have a 159 counties, some with less than 8,000 residents. A single sheriff patrols the ENTIRE county and EMS and fire are usually volunteers. Backup may be from our state patrol posts which can be 50 miles away.

Their interoperability needs are quite different than those of us in the big cities.

They also have a total county budget for a year that some counties like mine spend in a single month.

Go tell their county commissions and sheriff they need to spend millions on buying into some DTRS and see who gets called a troll.

ISSI? Hah, they just got touch tone dialing on their landlines!
__________________
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
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2014, 10:24 PM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,441
Default

Let's not lose sight of a key aspect of "interoperability." That is SIMPLICITY.

Somewhere along the line the need for blue guy to speak with brown guy - and later red guy and the orange guy, when they're all working together as a team (sociopolitical concerns aside) changed to needing to be infrastructure-bound. Yeah, bringing field communications back to dispatch has benefits, but then, bringing dispatch into the field a la incident dispatch has even greater benefits, including scalable span of control. Dispatch does not always have the resources or capabilities to dedicate, especially during long-duration incidents.

We can have ISSI and FSI, and even go beyond that and have common pin-outs and mix-and-match base stations (a Motorola next to a Harris next to a Tait, all working in one system), but the need still lies in the hands of those on-scene at the incident. The more complex a system is, the more vulnerable it is, and the more fragile it becomes, particularly in last-mile connectivity.

There will never be anything simpler than simplex (it's even in the name).

I propose to buck the trend and abandon industry. Here's how: we now have a large number of low band frequencies vacated by migration upward. A fleet can be outfitted with reasonably priced stand-alone analog radios for less than a collective investment in infrastructure. No divergent digital technologies. No big systems. The savings can be used to invest in portables and AA battery clamshells, too. We've had so many manufactured crises and bogeymen this last decade. Sanity needs to kick in again. The generations we had before us were very smart people. They knew enough to keep things simple. Take the CIO out of the equation and replace him or her with the responder.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 8:35 AM
MississippiPI's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: All over the Great State of Mississippi
Posts: 357
Default

Great knowledge and responses on this forum! I have an 800 MhZ MOTO and I can communicate with different regions on the country; i.e. TN, VA, NJ when I travel thru those states with my portable radio transmitting on the "national channels and tac channels"--only one county here in MS can copy me and that's Warren County (Vicksburg, MS.) My radio works in different parts of the country but only 1 county here has it in their console---that's is what concerns me...

Be safe
__________________
MississippiPi
Copiah County, MS.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 8:43 AM
ecps92's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quincy, Mass
Posts: 5,419
Default

YYMV but also remember Each Region runs the Interops differently.

Here in New England they are typically shut down until Access is "asked for" from the individual State POC's.

This prevents interference and also ....(Insert).... from causing trouble

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiPI View Post
Great knowledge and responses on this forum! I have an 800 MhZ MOTO and I can communicate with different regions on the country; i.e. TN, VA, NJ when I travel thru those states with my portable radio transmitting on the "national channels and tac channels"--only one county here in MS can copy me and that's Warren County (Vicksburg, MS.) My radio works in different parts of the country but only 1 county here has it in their console---that's is what concerns me...

Be safe
__________________
Bill N1KUG
Cruise Ship Frequencies
http://www.scanmaritime.com
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 9:11 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triptolemus View Post
Not that he needs a defender, but MTS2000des is a respected member of not only the radio hobbyist community, but also within his profession. His experience and integrity are recognized by many. Your foul-mouthed name calling and finger pointing is totally uncalled for and speaks to your lack of real world professional experience in the field you are discussing.
My foul mouth? Unless troll is foud mouthed, than I aplogoze for that.
I figured as much though as birds of a feather flock together. P25ca.

But any way I don't see how anyone would think the general idea proposed is a bad idea.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 9:19 AM
MikeOxlong's Avatar
Global DB Admin/Senior Mod
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Central Ontario
Posts: 5,766
Default What does interoperabilty mean to you for public saftey?

Gentlemen, please keep the discussion civil or else the thread will be locked.

Thanks.
__________________
Mike.

To contact me please use the email function through my profile as I do not accept Private Messages.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 9:54 AM
ecps92's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quincy, Mass
Posts: 5,419
Default

In my years of Disaster Response the first rule I was taught was to come to the Game with your own stuff.

There is no need to operate and tie up the resources of the community you are assisting.

Now, having a few Radios (for a CP/Dispatch) on their system (been done in the past) or using the Interop channels (NIFOG or Regional FOGS) is an idea, but there is no need of the actual responders being on the impacted communties radio systems, they will be busy enough. Just my $0.00001

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
Another possibility of interoperability is Guest users on P25 Trunked systems.
I had a descussion with Motorola and FEMA during a few meetings.


We have national I/O's conventional, what about the possibility of Interop Talkgroups.


I have not thought thru alot of the technical aspects or challanges, just kinda of off the cuff thoughts.

What are you thoughts or suggestions?
__________________
Bill N1KUG
Cruise Ship Frequencies
http://www.scanmaritime.com
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 11:07 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecps92 View Post
In my years of Disaster Response the first rule I was taught was to come to the Game with your own stuff.

There is no need to operate and tie up the resources of the community you are assisting.

Now, having a few Radios (for a CP/Dispatch) on their system (been done in the past) or using the Interop channels (NIFOG or Regional FOGS) is an idea, but there is no need of the actual responders being on the impacted communties radio systems, they will be busy enough. Just my $0.00001
There is that possibilty if the system is already heavily loaded, and TG priorities are not setup.

But if the system is setup correctly, even when heavily loaded, the system could easily handle 5 additional I/O Talkgroups.

And all P25 trunked systems should have I/O TG's that exist on every radio on there system. And most users would be moved to those channels anyway during a wide area long lived emergency.

Last edited by hitechRadio; 01-08-2014 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 2:11 PM
Jay911's Avatar
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bragg Creek, Alberta
Posts: 6,177
Default

Oh all right, I guess I'll put in my 2...

I am in the position that a handful of others are in, in that I have spent time on both sides of the mic, as a dispatcher and responder.

Interoperability means to me that communication between different agencies and/or responders is (relatively) easily attainable. It doesn't have to be through some high-priced, high-tech gateway, or other technological solutions. It means that if I am at an incident and I need to talk to X, Y, and Z, I can do so. Unfortunately, the "I can do so" part is not always easy to reach.

Several years ago, I was at a crash where a semi went off the Trans-Canada Highway into the woods. The wreckage caught fire and the high winds spread the fire into the surrounding area. It just so happened that the surrounding area consisted of two separate counties and a First Nation (aka "indian reservation"), which each have their own rules about who is responsible to attend fires.

So, we had the following on scene:

- Fire department responsible to attend wrecks on the highway, and responsible for one county's wildland responses: 800 trunked Smartzone system (operating on simplex 800 tac channels as well)
- Ambulance agency responsible for the highway: Telco iDEN system
- Police responsible for the highway: VHF conventional
- Fire department responsible for the other county's wildland responses: VHF conventional
- Fire department from the first county, backing up the first fire department, since they were tied up with the crash: UHF conventional
- Provincial forestry fire crews dealing with the First Nations territory on fire: VHF conventional

Naturally, the groups each had their own channels and stayed there; even if they were on the same band, there is no "common events" or "interop" channel. My department was supposed to be the rescue truck supporting the initial crash response, but because we carry UHF conventional, VHF conventional, and 800 Smartzone trunking/simplex conventional radios all in our one truck, in order to talk to all these disparate agencies, we became the de facto scene commanders, simply because we could talk to everyone (not counting EMS, which nobody can talk to at this point due to them being on iDEN, which has not yet been shut down in Canada).

Provincially, we have a couple of frequencies intended for cross-agency communication, on VHF, and a number of fire and EMS agencies have them. I have no idea if the RCMP (our police agency) has them; I would be surprised if they do. My FD, and some other forward-thinking agencies, have been arranging for permission from the various surrounding/partner agencies including the RCMP, to share frequencies when responding together. A neighboring department to mine has a standing SOP now for them to contact the RCMP on their (the mounties') channel when they are going to an incident that will require police involvement, and we're probably going that way too.

In the past few years, I have gotten involved with CITIG, the Canadian Interoperability Technology Interest Group. It does work on getting interoperability established both within Canada and across the border into the United States. It also has involvement in things like Next Generation 9-1-1 and 700 Broadband for Public Safety (which has not been decided to the extent that it has in the US, yet).

One of the recent successes that CITIG can be at least partially if not largely credited with is that public safety agencies along the borders of Montana, North Dakota, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have agreed to employ the frequency 155.475 (aka VLAW31 or BLUE depending on where you are) for communications between agencies in a cross-border incident/need. Not just LE agencies but any - ambulance or fire included. It'd be nice if this frequency could be used all throughout AB and SK for similar purposes inter- and intra-provincially, but the rule as it stands right now is that it can only be used cross-border and within 16km (10 miles) of the international border.

Canada doesn't have (as structured) an interoperability plan as the US does with the NIFOG channels. The governing body has established some interop/"public safety mutual aid" channels in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz band. They (no doubt not coincidentally) mirror the US 700 interop channels and the US 800 pre-rebanding (ICALL/ITAC, not 8CALL/8TAC) channels. There's also, for some reason, some 220 MHz interop frequencies, but nothing in the VHF and UHF bands like there is in the US. Furthermore, the bands themselves aren't as structured as the bands in the US are. There's no section of bandwidth in Canada that is reserved, for example, exclusively for law enforcement. There are some segments which are blocked off, i.e. railway, marine, etc., but you can find police and farming and commercial users allocated to adjacent channels in a band.

In an effort to improve "interoperability" between my FD and others in the area, last year, I applied for licenses for the aforementioned 700 and 800 interop channels. The initial response from the governing body was refusal, for a myriad of reasons:

- "Nobody else has these [the 700 freqs], so who are you planning on talking to?"
- "[agency 200 miles away] uses ITAC2 so we can't give it to you or you might cause interference"
- "[agency 30 miles away] has licenses for ICALL and ITAC1 so you will need their permission to use those frequencies before we grant you a license"
- "You shouldn't be asking for so many channels" (the 44 freqs in the 700 interop plan) "- just the ones you really need, because if we give them all to you, then nobody else can ask for them"

Clearly, government officials aren't cognizant of the point of having these interop channels. It took some doing, but finally things got cleared up and we got our licenses as requested. (The invalidity of the above responses was sorted out and the governing body understands the purpose of interop channels now.) I've had informal/semi-formal conversations with neighboring agencies on a policy to switch to these interop channels when we need to communicate with one another, and if need be, we can also fall back on the frequencies we have shared with one another (or granted each other permission to program the other agency's freqs in our radios).

The next step is to get a regional group together (again) and get serious about a policy to use these channels the way they were meant to be. That was an important message conveyed by several parties at the CITIG conference in November (and hi, if you're reading, guys). We have to get around to employing the tools we've been given (or fought tooth-and-nail for). Like other posters have said, you can put as much toys, bells, and whistles out there, but you have to have personnel that want to intercommunicate, in order for this to be a success. I mentioned at the top of this post that I wear two hats - both responder and dispatcher. Late last summer during a water rescue, I bore witness to a situation where the fire department (water rescue team), police helicopter (assisting in the search), and EMS supervisor were all on the same tri-services mutual aid talkgroup talking to one another. This was the first time in 13 years as a dispatcher that I ever saw those MA talkgroups used for their intended purpose. We need to get more responders into that habit.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2014, 8:13 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Default

Very interesting Jay, good incite to what goes on at the border. Sounds like a lot of steps have been taking to achieve what your needing for interop there. Whatever it takes, to get the job done.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 01-09-2014, 11:41 AM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
Whatever it takes, to get the job done.
That's all I was trying to say, but when I say it, I'm a troll. Whatever.
__________________
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
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 01-09-2014, 1:09 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTS2000des View Post
That's all I was trying to say, but when I say it, I'm a troll. Whatever.
I have not disgreed with how interoperabilty is achived today patches or otherswise. I just believe there are better/easier ways to achive it. And thus the ideas I proposed wether a pipe dream or not, I just shared my ideas? Do you have any Pro's to ideas I have said, or is it all Con's?

Hey i would support if the FCC would type accept cheap $100 amateur Tri/dual band portables and mobiles. Baofangs for everyone!

But I am not putting them in my fire fighters or PD, EMS hands. For primary use. Sometimes you have to spend money for public saftey. And somtimes it can cost alot of money.

I would not recommend full blown trunked sytem for a small town with only 2 or 3 conventional channels.
But if upgrading to digital because of narrowbanding or other reasons (as alot of agencies have done), i believe it should be P25 conventional.

Or another option for a slightly larger town, if a state wide system exsist, and funding could be secured. Install 3 or 4 channel site. They would get all the benifits of a trunking system, but with minimal costs.

Of course this is just my opinion. I realize all agencies have budgets.
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 01-09-2014, 2:38 PM
MTS2000des's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cobb County, GA PCT 3 Crime Central
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post
I have not disgreed with how interoperabilty is achived today patches or otherswise. I just believe there are better/easier ways to achive it. And thus the ideas I proposed wether a pipe dream or not, I just shared my ideas? Do you have any Pro's to ideas I have said, or is it all Con's?
Good, I knew I wasn't trolling.
I already mentioned the problems I have about opening up trunking systems in the manner in which you described. I think the biggest barrier is not just technical but the reason many agencies choose these walled gardens in the first place: they don't WANT others not in their agency under their control in. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechRadio View Post

Hey i would support if the FCC would type accept cheap $100 amateur Tri/dual band portables and mobiles. Baofangs for everyone!

But I am not putting them in my fire fighters or PD, EMS hands. For primary use. Sometimes you have to spend money for public saftey. And somtimes it can cost alot of money.
I agree. Low cost radios does not mean bottom of the barrel imported hobbyist toys instead of tools. But there is no reason we cannot demand more practical, lower cost multiband public safety grade radios that support ALL digital air interfaces (P25, NXDN and DMR) for under $1000 per subscriber radio.

You know and I know it is entirely possible and profitable at this price point. The fact that Apple can pack more RF functionality and processing power in an Iphone 5S, make millions of them, and sell them for under $800 a piece full retail and have the stock price they do proves it.

You aren't going to tell me with a straight face that an APX7000 is worth the $4000 asking price with all the software options. Inside it's just a couple of boards that are no different than what is inside an Iphone 5S. And the Iphone 5S has way more CPU, hardware and sophisticated UI.

The vendors in this business run the show. If the consumers did, it would be radically different.
__________________
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
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 4:02 PM.


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