ATSC 3.0-Based First Responder Pager System

[gmclam]

An update to the analog pager system used to dispatch first responders to emergencies is long overdue, says Fred Engel, CTO of PBS North Carolina.
The existing system, more than a half century old, may have been great in its day, but by today’s standard is unacceptably slow, taking precious minutes to deliver dispatches and details of emergencies that could have been delivered in seconds with a modern digital alternative.

Summit Preview: PBS North Carolina CTO Fred Engel Discusses ATSC 3.0-Based First Responder Pager System | TV Tech (tvtechnology.com)

 

[MtnBiker2005]

ATSC 3.0 is great technology to have around. Lots of options to come with it.

My ATSC 3.0 notes.

San Diego-Los Angeles TV Stations Broadcasting ATSC 3.0 and ATSC 3.0 Tuner Hardware products for home - NextGenTV - ScanDiego.com

 

[belvdr]

Along with more user tracking.

 

[mwjones]

Using television/radio broadcast frequencies to carry out paging signals. Oh, how they forget the idea was there in the 1930's, from the NBC Radio Network. The Fourth Chime | The NBC Chimes Museum

 

[wa8pyr]

Using television/radio broadcast frequencies to carry out paging signals. Oh, how they forget the idea was there in the 1930's, from the NBC Radio Network. The Fourth Chime | The NBC Chimes Museum

Interesting idea, but...

Not sure how Mr PBS got the idea that existing systems are unacceptably slow, and how ATSC 3.0 would be any faster. It's still sending a wireless signal out to subscriber devices. How it happens doesn't matter; any delay getting the info out usually comes during the dispatch process, between the time the call is answered and the time the alerting signal is sent by the dispatcher (whatever the method).

And it presumes having a transmitter nearby which can reliably cover your entire service area. Our county only has one (which is not yet ATSC 3.0 equipped), and it's got conspicuous dead spots in areas where we would need coverage. If you can't pick it up the TV signal in your house without an exterior antenna, will sending alerting signals to volunteer fire/EMS members work any better? Doubt it.

Finally, how much will this wonder gadget cost? Existing VHF/UHF pagers are relatively inexpensive.

 

[dispatchgeek]

I agree with you. It’s a neat concept, fun nerdy thing. It feels like a solution in search of a problem though.

Interesting idea, but...

Not sure how Mr PBS got the idea that existing systems are unacceptably slow, and how ATSC 3.0 would be any faster. It's still sending a wireless signal out to subscriber devices. How it happens doesn't matter; any delay getting the info out usually comes during the dispatch process, between the time the call is answered and the time the alerting signal is sent by the dispatcher (whatever the method).

And it presumes having a transmitter nearby which can reliably cover your entire service area. Our county only has one (which is not yet ATSC 3.0 equipped), and it's got conspicuous dead spots in areas where we would need coverage. If you can't pick it up the TV signal in your house without an exterior antenna, will sending alerting signals to volunteer fire/EMS members work any better? Doubt it.

Finally, how much will this wonder gadget cost? Existing VHF/UHF pagers are relatively inexpensive.

 

[mikewazowski]

Last time I checked, our local tv station was down to one engineer. Not sure I’d want to trust my public safety paging to them.

 

[mmckenna]

Radio Club of America did a presentation on this back in 2020:

 

[GraniteScanner]

Paging over ATSC 3.0 sounds interesting but what if a tv station needs to work on or repair their system? What if they need to operate at a reduced power or do some unscheduled work on the transmitter? That could potentially interfere with the effectiveness of the paging system... I would assume...?

 

[mmckenna]

Paging over ATSC 3.0 sounds interesting but what if a tv station needs to work on or repair their system? What if they need to operate at a reduced power or do some unscheduled work on the transmitter? That could potentially interfere with the effectiveness of the paging system... I would assume...?

Watch the video I linked to. They cover all this stuff.
It's not just one TV station in each market, it would be all TV stations.

 

[IC-R20]

Last time I checked, our local tv station was down to one engineer. Not sure I’d want to trust my public safety paging to them.

Not to mention “digital messages within seconds” is already done in some departments, my local FD did it over MDC1200 at one point. Just your typical fad mongering for today’s overindulgent delusional generation. Shame this mindset has been affecting professional sectors now too the past few years. Used to just be consumer garbage only.

 

[wa8pyr]

Last time I checked, our local tv station was down to one engineer. Not sure I’d want to trust my public safety paging to them.

I consider it another arrow in the quiver. It might be OK as an adjunct to traditional methods, but stand-alone? Nope.

Watch the video I linked to. They cover all this stuff.
It's not just one TV station in each market, it would be all TV stations.

Right, but my county is adjacent to a major market. We've got significant areas of the county where an outdoor antenna is absolutely necessary to receive ATSC TV signals. Our 800 MHz conventional paging transmitter works better.

That being the case, paging over ATSC would be of only partial value in our county. If it's something that would be possible, my preferred use would be placing a receiver in each fire station (with the necessary outdoor antenna), and connecting it to a printer so the crews could grab a hard copy of the run details as they head to the truck.

 

[gmclam]

ATSC 3.0 is not the same as the original ATSC 1.0. They've changed the modulation scheme and made it more suitable for mobile reception. I don't think this "tool" is right for everywhere, but it certainly can help in many places. I think it's also important to note that ATSC 3.0 will use the same streaming protocol as the Internet. Comparing to 1.0 to 3.0 is not a good compare.

 

[wa8pyr]

ATSC 3.0 is not the same as the original ATSC 1.0. They've changed the modulation scheme and made it more suitable for mobile reception. I don't think this "tool" is right for everywhere, but it certainly can help in many places. I think it's also important to note that ATSC 3.0 will use the same streaming protocol as the Internet. Comparing to 1.0 to 3.0 is not a good compare.

I don't think anyone has compared 1.0 to 3.0 in this thread; if the paging thing works, that's great, but the major issue (besides cost) would simply be RF coverage. If I can't receive an ATSC3.0 TV signal in my house without an external antenna (and I can't), a little ATSC3.0 pager on my belt certainly won't receive anything. If I can't receive it, I can't receive it; it doesn't matter what format the broadcast is using.

 

[MTS2000des]

I think the ATSC 3 data stream is much more robust, being that paging is very "light" payload wise, encapsulated with good error correction, it might be able to survive getting inside a structure where as a full ATSC video stream may not. I am with you, I'm skeptical about putting anything critical for alerting on a consumer grade commercial carrier system. This isn't a new thing though, remember the Panasonic pagers (believe they were POCSAG) that were sent on a 57KHz FM subcarrier of many class B or C FM stations delivered via satellite feeds.

 

[us007605]

Here is a white paper that talks about ATSC 3 and the capabilities.

https://comarktv.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ATSC-3.0-Overview-3-2017-1.pdf

Pages 8 and 9 are where the discussion of Modulation and Coding scheme possibilities is. Since it can have multiple pipes simultaneously it could be sent on a very robust, low bit-rate data pipe, separate from the normal UHD/HD/SD program streams. Where the current ATSC 1.0 needs around 15 dB SNR, they claim with QPSK, FEC 3/15 the required SNR is around -3dB. Still have a hard time grasping the concept of a negative Signal to Noise ratio.

 

[gmclam]

I don't think anyone has compared 1.0 to 3.0 in this thread; if the paging thing works, that's great, but the major issue (besides cost) would simply be RF coverage. If I can't receive an ATSC3.0 TV signal in my house without an external antenna (and I can't), a little ATSC3.0 pager on my belt certainly won't receive anything. If I can't receive it, I can't receive it; it doesn't matter what format the broadcast is using.

ATSC 3.0 is not fully on the air. It depends on your exact (TV) market, etc. There are historic problems with ATSC 1.0. At some point in the future it will be all 3.0 and will have great coverage. Plus, are you trying to pick up a 1.0 signal on VHF or UHF? It's not all that simple as you need to use the correct antenna (band and polarity)....

I don't think 1.0 was fully deployed to fill in all the coverage gaps. It is bad on VHF (especially VHF low band). It doesn't work with mobile receivers. The signal is (largely) polarized horizontal, not ideal for portables. These things are more were taken into consideration and that led us to 3.0. At this early stage of 3.0 deployment, sure there are issues. They will be worked out. Don't compare your experiences with 1.0 thinking that's what you'll get with 3.0.

 

[GraniteScanner]

Watch the video I linked to. They cover all this stuff.
It's not just one TV station in each market, it would be all TV stations.

Now that's super cool

 

[krokus]

Putting life critical in the hands of the commercial services is not a good idea. They can be great supplemental tools.

I can imagine the delays as all agencies queue up their dispatch data, waiting their time slot on the broadcast.

 

[gmclam]

Putting life critical in the hands of the commercial services is not a good idea. They can be great supplemental tools.

Except that's what they're doing everywhere. Lots of places using a public cell network. And the very least non-emergency users would be bumped off in an actual emergency.