SAFE-T 800MHz System Approaching Capacity Limits

[KD4YGG]

June 2, 2010

TO:
Indiana County Commissions
Indiana County Emergency Management Directors

FROM:
Integrated Public Safety Commission

SUBJECT:
Statewide 800 MHz Radio System – Hoosier SAFE- T System Subscriber (Radio) ID Pool

Many of you became aware during the statewide interoperable communication conference in August that the SAFE-T 800MHz system is approaching capacity limits in relation to the number of System/User ID’s that remain available to current and future SAFE-T subscribers.

This letter serves as further clarification for this topic.

As of this writing, there are approximately 53,100 ID’s configured in the system. Given our current growth, (approximately 2% per month) we envision reaching the system limits in July-August of 2010.

During the November meeting of the Integrated Public Safety Commission (IPSC) it was authorized to notify users of the remaining ID limits and to implement more stringent policy for issuing new ID’s.

Effective with this letter, the Commission has authorized the following:

IPSC will no longer issue new ID’s to regional 800MHz systems and will instead encourage each of these entities to program national mutual aid channels, more commonly known as NPSPAC Call, TAC1, TAC2, TAC3 and TAC4. Further, regional system managers are asked to review the use of radios to determine continued need for a SAFE-T user ID.

The Network Operations Center (NOC) may require agencies to verify use of previously issued ID’s/radios for which the NOC cannot confirm system affiliation within the past 60 calendar days.

Given the above requirement, the NOC will issue ID’s to those agencies who have submitted email requests in the order received. No telephone requests will be honored. Field Coordinators will not be responsible for forwarding email requests, so please submit requests directly to the NOC.

IPSC staff will work with agencies who use wireline consoles to minimize the number of resources (ID’s) required on each console position. IPSC will also work with agencies to understand better those ID’s used in relation to talkgroups being recorded.

IPSC staff will research the number of unused analog talkgroups/ID’s and will recover and convert as many as possible to digital ID’s for future reissue.

The IPSC has further directed staff to pursue upgrade of SAFE-T to the next generation of Project 25 open system trunking radio systems.

To that end, IPSC has been researching options for P25 systems technology, some of which include migration of the current infrastructure. The infrastructure migration to P25 is, naturally, quite expensive. We continue to research available federal grant opportunities and will work with our partners at the Indiana Department of Homeland Security and other state agencies as funding for the upgrade is not currently identified.

NOTE: The Commission strongly recommends SAFE-T agencies contact IPSC staff before purchasing any new radios, as the availability of user/subscriber ID’s may impact the quantity of new radios that can be configured in the system. Agencies may wish to consider future programming needs and P25 upgrade options, where necessary, for interoperable communications.

Please contact the Integrated Public Safety Commission with questions.

 

[jerk]

Now they figure that out! With the hundreds of planning meetings already... boy oh boy.

Gee, perhaps they ought start with Johnson County and take away their numerous analog talk-groups, and then the numerous digital talk-groups. Just because they were first doesn't mean they need all those groups

Then dump INDOT off the system completely, that will free up many subscriber ID's.

And remember folks... this system is going to work in a disaster... Not!

 

[AK9R]

AB, this letter is talking about user IDs. I think the problem is too many radios with IDs in the system--not too many talkgroups.

However, I do agree that it may be time to get the non-public safety users off of the system entirely...or build a new system for PS. That'll take lots of money, though.

 

[jerk]

AB, this letter is talking about user IDs. I think the problem is too many radios with IDs in the system--not too many talkgroups.

However, I do agree that it may be time to get the non-public safety users off of the system entirely...or build a new system for PS. That'll take lots of money, though.

It's both problems... but it is their own creation.
First they wanted everybody on "Safe-T" now they don't?

It is interesting, count up how many TG's Johnson County has, and then the number of radios (which is probably not public) but the excessive talk-groups in one county both analog and digital tells me it is poorly managed, poorly implemented, and poorly planned.
Johnson County has 72 talk-groups, 72!

I'm no genius, guess that why I don't work for the State.
But most radios are not allowed to talk on sites outside of their County. Not including Mutual Aid channels. Split the Safe-T into four separate systems, not Zones, which multiplies your available ID's by four, use the option or require the option to program multiple systems (again not zones) into the radios and operate Safe-T that way. And allow roaming on the other sites as needed.
AT&T and Verizon do it with millions of radios (cell phones)

The old analog trunking systems could handle 2-3 systems easy, though usually only one was programmed into each radio.

And I could be wrong... but they are re-banding anyway, so let's find a solution while that is in process instead of saying to users don't add more radios.

 

[kb9sxk]

old news

7.x will solve this issue.

 

[KidClerk]

And after all is said and done, I still can't communicate with my counterparts 10 miles to the west of me in Illinois. Oh, wait, sure I can....on VHF.

 

[radioman2001]

Typical, first everybody HAS to be on the new improved inter-agency capable radio system. Get those grants, build it out, not realizing that what should have been done in the first place, which is to do an inventory as to how many radios they would eventually have on the system. Then make sure the system can handle it. Sounds like SAFE-T is too successful. If I were on the system and they were going to recoup my id's I would ask for my money back on the equipment and service charges, switch back to whatever radio system I originaly had and then tell them to take a hike with theirs.
As to throwing off non public safety users, sounds pretty arrogant in my opinion. The system I presume was designed for all agencies to use, recedived grants, monies for that purpose, who are you to throw off users that paid with taxpayer dollars to be on it, so you can put others on it. Maybe we should go through all the cellular users and determine who has more priority than others, and throw off the ones we don't like so we don't get busies or no service when we call our wives/ husbands at 4 o'clock.
If I were in charge of the system administration, I would tell all those wanting to be on the system that they will have to wait until the system has capacity to handle their radio's. Do the upgrade and pay the subscriber the difference between analog and digital subscriber equipment, until the whole system is converted to digital. If that solves the ID problem.

 

[jerk]

old news

7.x will solve this issue.

Not by itself it won't, IPSC is a shortsighted agency and don't believe everything they say. Most State EMA and local workers hate when I show up at meetings because I don't accept what they "proclaim" and I ask hard what if questions. I think every EMA person and agency should be doing the same thing, Indiana would be better off. And yes, State people have called my chief to complain and checked my certifications.

Originally they only thought (planned) 19,000 radios would be on the Safe-T system. Oops.

 

[jerk]

Typical, first everybody HAS to be on the new improved inter-agency capable radio system. Get those grants, build it out, not realizing that what should have been done in the first place, which is to do an inventory as to how many radios they would eventually have on the system. Then make sure the system can handle it. Sounds like SAFE-T is too successful. If I were on the system and they were going to recoup my id's I would ask for my money back on the equipment and service charges, switch back to whatever radio system I originaly had and then tell them to take a hike with theirs.
As to throwing off non public safety users, sounds pretty arrogant in my opinion. The system I presume was designed for all agencies to use, recedived grants, monies for that purpose, who are you to throw off users that paid with taxpayer dollars to be on it, so you can put others on it. Maybe we should go through all the cellular users and determine who has more priority than others, and throw off the ones we don't like so we don't get busies or no service when we call our wives/ husbands at 4 o'clock.
If I were in charge of the system administration, I would tell all those wanting to be on the system that they will have to wait until the system has capacity to handle their radio's. Do the upgrade and pay the subscriber the difference between analog and digital subscriber equipment, until the whole system is converted to digital. If that solves the ID problem.

Actually they do have a cellular priority system... and I have access to it.
But realistically, the cellular companies are market driven, and they add capacity when a cell sit gets to capacity. Government just raises taxes and makes excuses.

 

[kb9sxk]

And after all is said and done, I still can't communicate with my counterparts 10 miles to the west of me in Illinois. Oh, wait, sure I can....on VHF.

No 8CALL or 8TAC?

 

[kb9sxk]

Not by itself it won't, IPSC is a shortsighted agency and don't believe everything they say. Most State EMA and local workers hate when I show up at meetings because I don't accept what they "proclaim" and I ask hard what if questions. I think every EMA person and agency should be doing the same thing, Indiana would be better off. And yes, State people have called my chief to complain and checked my certifications.

Originally they only thought (planned) 19,000 radios would be on the Safe-T system. Oops.

You only have part of the story. SAFE-T began in the CSEEP counties. They chose P16 in order to allow counties that were analog Smart Zone / omnilink to join at a lower expense.

This is a very well run and effective system. It will only get better. Growing pains? sure! There are some great people at IPSC. Indiana is lucky.

 

[frankcastle]

Originally they only thought (planned) 19,000 radios would be on the Safe-T system. Oops.

Wow! Planned for 19,000 and they currently have 53,000 and growing. Looks like somebody miscalculated! Gotta love our government.

 

[jerk]

You only have part of the story. SAFE-T began in the CSEEP counties. They chose P16 in order to allow counties that were analog Smart Zone / omnilink to join at a lower expense.

This is a very well run and effective system. It will only get better. Growing pains? sure! There are some great people at IPSC. Indiana is lucky.

Like I said... don't drink the Kool Aid...
The number of busies is excessively high, and I can't even see the total of the statistics. The systems works... but well-run and effective... I disagree.

The reason they "went" with CSEEP is because it was politically correct, i.e. we can get grant money.

The planning went on long before that, in fact District 45 was thought to be the first or second implementation of Safe-T because then Governor O'Bannon lived in Corydon and it would ideal for his protection detail and ISP to communicate. However logistics and coverage would not work efficiently, still doesn't, (also no money available) and so ISP district 45 became last for Safe-T implementation.

The money became available when they tied into Newport Chemical depot, and if it had been well managed, they would have bought new radios for all involved instead of trying nickel and dime it... the end result is almost 15 years later problems that result from that short sightedness.

 

[jerk]

Wow! Planned for 19,000 and they currently have 53,000 and growing. Looks like somebody miscalculated! Gotta love our government.

It's that ISTEP math estimation that they require to be taught in Elementary and Middle school.

They quote a maximum radio ID figure of about 64,000 when the actual number is 65,535 radios only off by 1500 radios or so.
But why use the actually number when an estimate will do... it is government after all, never commit yourself.

 

[kb9sxk]

It's that ISTEP math estimation that they require to be taught in Elementary and Middle school.

They quote a maximum radio ID figure of about 64,000 when the actual number is 65,535 radios only off by 1500 radios or so.
But why use the actually number when an estimate will do... it is government after all, never commit yourself.

Alpha,

Where did you get this 16000 number?

I have not been sipping kool aid...I prefer bourbon.

I am intimately involved in the admin and implementation of SAFE-T in 12 counties. I work with IPSC staff, know them, and have trained with them,

Get to know them. You say politically correct to use grant money? I say smart. Indiana is one of the only states not to charge a users fee. Look at Michigan, Illinois or Ohio to see what could be.

 

[jerk]

Alpha,
Where did you get this 16000 number?
I have not been sipping kool aid...I prefer bourbon.

I am intimately involved in the admin and implementation of SAFE-T in 12 counties. I work with IPSC staff, know them, and have trained with them,

Get to know them. You say politically correct to use grant money? I say smart. Indiana is one of the only states not to charge a users fee. Look at Michigan, Illinois or Ohio to see what could be.

You mean 64000? This is the figure in ISPC's letter.
I too have attended the training sessions, and some of it is technically wrong. Grant money is tax dollars, spoken like a true government employee.

Most of the Safe-T money comes from a fee (tax) on driver's licenses.
User fees charged by Michigan and Ohio are also a tax... but their systems are not at capacity because it is too expense to use for most agencies.

ISPC tells us what they think we need and how we should do our job. And the emergency responders let them, and now we have a radio system that they are telling to not use because it's at capacity. Previous years they went around telling everybody this is the system switch to, this is the system that they brag about in national media. It is quickly becoming failure in my opinion.

 

[powerlineman]

Pre-planned problem....here come the user fees

 

[AK9R]

...switch back to whatever radio system I originaly had and then tell them to take a hike with theirs.

I know at least one county that switched everything from a hodge-podge of agency-specific VHF systems to SAFE-T. The excuse they gave for spending the money to buy SAFE-T radios was that they needed interoperability. Everytime I heard that, I wanted to scream. They could have had interoperability with their VHF systems if they had simply pooled their resources, redesigned the individual systems into a county-wide VHF system, developed a common county-wide programming template, and done a little training.

I thought they were smart at the time to keep their VHF systems as a back-up. Now, I hear that they may dump all of their VHF capabilities rather than go through the expense of buying narrow-band equipment. They will either have to stay on SAFE-T or launch their own P25 system and there's no money to do that.

 

[frankcastle]

Pre-planned problem....here come the user fees

Ahh...The old bait and switch, or more like every other subscription service these days. The first 12 months you get a great deal, then they get you hooked on it. After your "introductory" period is up. The price jumps. Interesting concept Powerlineman

 

[kb9sxk]

You mean 64000? This is the figure in ISPC's letter.
I too have attended the training sessions, and some of it is technically wrong. Grant money is tax dollars, spoken like a true government employee.

Most of the Safe-T money comes from a fee (tax) on driver's licenses.
User fees charged by Michigan and Ohio are also a tax... but their systems are not at capacity because it is too expense to use for most agencies.

ISPC tells us what they think we need and how we should do our job. And the emergency responders let them, and now we have a radio system that they are telling to not use because it's at capacity. Previous years they went around telling everybody this is the system switch to, this is the system that they brag about in national media. It is quickly becoming failure in my opinion.

Originally Posted by frankcastle View Post
Wow! Planned for 19,000 and they currently have 53,000 and growing. Looks like somebody miscalculated! Gotta love our government.

Sorry, i ment this number.