Contractor vows to clear problems from emergency wireless network

[DaveNF2G]

IP is M/A-Com's way of sneaking around the "interoperability" issue. If the system can be linked to another system at the back end by using some sort of networking, then they can claim that it is interoperable.

 

[studgeman]

It should be CLEARLY noted that no comparisons can be made to the PA system, the New York system is significantly more advanced in several feature areas. There is no doubt that where the PA system works, it works well. There is well documented evidence of tower handoff and subscriber association problem with the New York version, theses are not problems in PA. It should also be noted that NY and PA systems are different enough that they are NOT compatiable. That tidbit comes direct from the M/A Com rep on the NY project.

Frankly most of the things that do work are the feature levels of the PA System, ie VTACs in PA and NY can handle 2 subscriber associations with no trouble, NY is supposed to be able to connect more than 2, so far that hasnt happend.

...just the tip of the iceberg, but should generate some discussion...

 

[DaveNF2G]

It should also be noted that NY and PA systems are different enough that they are NOT compatiable. That tidbit comes direct from the M/A Com rep on the NY project.

Interesting. So different implementations of OpenSky are not even interoperable with each other.

I think the feds should go the next step and outlaw non-P25 digital radio systems from public safety.

 

[sc800]

I can understand why that would seem like a good idea, but:

Who is going to pay for Podunk County Sheriff with 3 deputies to implement a digital P25 system?

I can see this quickly becoming an un or underfunded mandate, and we all know how well those work.

 

[GTR8000]

I think you misunderstood Dave's point. Sounds like he was suggesting that IF a digital/trunked system is going to be implemented for public safety use, that it should use the open-standard P25 protocol. He did not suggest that all public safety MUST move to a P25 system. Big difference.

I'm not a huge fan of government regulation and the like, but in this particular case, I'm inclined to agree with Dave. If "interoperability" is going to be the hyped up buzzword continually shoved down our throats as it has been since 9/11, then perhaps a good place to start would be with a standardized protocol? Just a thought, don't want to make TOO much sense here, you know how well logic goes over when dealing with these matters.

Frankly, if Studge's claim that the NY and PA systems aren't even compatible, that's a joke. NY and PA share an immense border, so to imagine that they would both be using the same proprietary radio system without being able to make use of the other, is crazy. And yes, naturally there are ways to tie the systems together, but one would think you'd be able to do it native to the system itself, without needing a hodgepodge of patches and interlinks and repeaters.

Ironically, I seem to remember that manhunt on the NY/PA border a few years ago as yet another reason/excuse why we NEED these "interoperable" systems. So much for that, I guess. :roll:

 

[K2KOH]

I'll say it again...on our domestic borders:
Connecticut.....Motorola P25 trunked
Massachusetts.....Motorola P25 trunked
New Jersey.....Motorola Type II Analog
Vermont.....Standard UHF analog

Am I missing something here?

 

[sc800]

Res6cue:

Thank you, I did misunderstand. I thought he was talking about putting every agency on a full P25 system, not just giving them access to certain p25 channels/talkgroups.

I also will be sending a PM about your last one to me, sorry about the delay

 

[HarrisRF]

RadioRaull, you mean...

Why do I need a license to be an amateur when I already do this professionally?!?!

 

[ElroyJetson]

I think it would be a good idea if the Fed were to set a policy where agencies are only eligible to receive federal funding for their radio systems if they go with P25 or another federally accepted radio system type
which satisfies federal requirements for cross-platform, cross-brand compatibility.

Nobody would be FORCED to go P25, but if they did, the fed would help foot the bill for it. ENCOURAGE
interoperability without making it compulsory.

Elroy

 

[6m171]

I think it would be a good idea if the Fed were to set a policy where agencies are only eligible to receive federal funding for their radio systems if they go with P25 or another federally accepted radio system type
which satisfies federal requirements for cross-platform, cross-brand compatibility.

Nobody would be FORCED to go P25, but if they did, the fed would help foot the bill for it. ENCOURAGE
interoperability without making it compulsory.

Elroy

Interesting you mention that Elroy. They are working towards that with the FY2008 SAFECOM grants. They are encouraging P25 compliance and strongly discouraging non-P25 compliance, but fell short of making any mandates.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_safecom.pdf

 

[DaveNF2G]

That particular standard already exists. The trouble is, agencies or states that are independently wealthy can sacrifice Federal support and buy whatever they want - like the various OpenSky disasters that are popping up.

The next step would be for the FCC to refuse to certify non-P25-compliant systems and equipment for public safety use.

 

[comspec]

I'll say it again...on our domestic borders:
Connecticut.....Motorola P25 trunked
Massachusetts.....Motorola P25 trunked
New Jersey.....Motorola Type II Analog
Vermont.....Standard UHF analog

Am I missing something here?

Maybe I am missing something. What's your point?

I laugh when I hear the justification for all these systems is Interoperability. Take the STAT flight medical helicopter for example. WHen they are dispatched to a scence they are given a frequency and a PL/DCS by the dispatcher. They simply program their radio and BINGO interoperability.

Ask any ham operator (include me ) and we will tell you my HAM radio is interoperable with all other ham radios. Tell me your repeater input/output and PL or your simplex frequency and I can operate anywhere.

We don't need this complex IP based trunk radio systems to have interoperability.

Oh wait, you mean "statewide" interoperability so someone in Albany can talk with someone in NYC. Hey, we have that too, its called Echolink, but what the hell do we know we are after all "Just a bunch of Amatures" we should leave this important stuff to the PROS.

 

[GTR8000]

You're not seriously suggesting that the solution to interoperability is to just give everyone a multi-band, field programmable radio, are you? Do you realize the logistical nightmare that would create? Seriously, I'm not trying to be condescending towards either you or the average first responder, but take your tech geek ham hat off for a minute and put yourself in the shoes of the average Joe Fireman/Cop/EMT in the field. Got more important things to worry about than what frequency/PL/offset we need to program into the radio in order to talk to so-and-so. Also keep in mind that NYS is extremely diverse as far as the radio systems go. You've still got a ton of people on VHF Low, in addition of course to VHF High, UHF and 800. You even have many agencies in a very small geographical area, like Rockland County, that use VHF Low for fire dispatch and truck to truck, UHF for fireground ops, and VHF High for PD/EMS. It's a logistical nightmare, and there's no way you're going to issue tri-band radios to everyone so they can be interoperable. The best solution was to move EVERYONE to a UHF T band P25 trunked system and call it a day. LifeNet (previously StatFlight), is a completely different animal altogether, and simply cannot be compared to the local neighborhood fire trucks, police cars and ambulances. They have just a handful of airships to equip with these multi-band radios, not a whole slew of them. It's also a lot easier for them to train a few pilots and crewmembers in the use of the radio, as opposed to thousands of first responders.

 

[N_Jay]

The next step would be for the FCC to refuse to certify non-P25-compliant systems and equipment for public safety use.

Except The FCC does not certify equipment for "public safety use".:roll:

 

[comspec]

You're not seriously suggesting that the solution to interoperability is to just give everyone a multi-band, field programmable radio, are you? Do you realize the logistical nightmare that would create? .

I do know the nightmare it would create, but my point remains valid even if I was not clear in making it. States, Counties, Towns, Villages, etc. are moving towards these extremely complex and diverse radio systems and the biggest reason they cite for doing so is interoperability. By doing this they are implying that interoperability is not achieveable without these extermely complex systems. I was attempting to show that interoperabilty does not require a 2 BILLION DOLLAR IP system. A county can have interoperability just by picking a single frequency and making sure it is programed in everyones radio. OK, so you can't dynamically set up trunk groups for sepcial events and things like that all which can bring value to a trunking system

But and here is the point I may not have been clear on...

Interoperability DOES NOT require a 2 Billion Dollar Radio System. Interoperabilty is an PLAN not a technology. When everyone at least had FM radios Interoperability was easier then it is now that there are more standards, more systems, prorpietary VoCoders, proprietary packet headers, ESKs, Encryption etc. etc, etc.

and as you stated...

there's no way you're going to issue tri-band radios to everyone so they can be interoperable. The best solution was to move EVERYONE to a UHF T band P25 trunked system and call it a day.

So not to be condecending to you, but rather then give everyone a triband radio you advocate to replace the entire radio system which after all is said and done may not be "interoperable" with the system the next county puts in unless they buy a Million dollar gateway to get them to talk to each other. There are other solutions. Before all this fancy technology (as cool as it is) came about it was the job of you EOC or OEM office to bring "interoperability" by allowing the information from multiple agencies to be coordinated. As humans we don't always do a good job of managing large volumes of data in a short period of time. Communications often become confussed and hectic during even a small emergency. This is a human limitation not easily corrected with a radio system. There is nothing wrong with everyone being on different frequencies otherwise there is not enough channel capacity to pass the necessry traffic. Informaiton needs to be managed at a command post or EOC and resources managed as best as humanly possible. As for scene communication, Portable repeaters, cross band repeaters, pre-arranged "mutual aid" frequencies, you could even use CB radio if you wanted to (not that I would recommend it) so long as you had a PLAN.

So in summary. Yes Trunk Systems are good and can add a lot of value to state or county communications ability, but interoperability should not be the only reason you choose to do it, becuase there may be other more effective and cost effective ways of doing it. Remember the main reason for the NYS SWN was supposed to be interoperability.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Except The FCC does not certify equipment for "public safety use".:roll:

They could if they so chose. The enabling legislation permits such policymaking by the Commission.

 

[DaveNF2G]

You're not seriously suggesting that the solution to interoperability is to just give everyone a multi-band, field programmable radio, are you?

Of course not. The solution to "interoperability" begins with defining the problem correctly.

First responders in Buffalo have no need whatsoever to talk to first responders in NYC on their Buffalo area radios. If they are deployed to NYC - or anywhere else in the State - then they should be able to communicate over designated nationwide (and maybe additional statewide) mutual aid channels.

Got more important things to worry about than what frequency/PL/offset we need to program into the radio in order to talk to so-and-so.

Exactly. Things like fire suppression, triage, crowd control, and making arrests, functions that are not accomplished with radios.

It's also a lot easier for them to train a few pilots and crewmembers in the use of the radio, as opposed to thousands of first responders.

This an older problem. Arguably, thousands of individual first responders do not need to have their own personal transceivers.

 

[N_Jay]

They could if they so chose. The enabling legislation permits such policymaking by the Commission.

How are they going to do that?

Move "public safety" out of Part 90 and into a new part?

How do you define "public Safety radios"?

 

[newsnick175]

Gentilemen, there was never an effort to make NY's SWN logical or smart. It was all about Ma-com's parent company, Tyco and their New York lobiest: Alfonse D'Amoto's in with the then gov. George Pataki. George didn't mind spending 2 billion that the state didn't have 'cause that would be the next gov's [ Spitzer ] problem. Now Patterson has the honer of killing this mutant child, the off spring of Dick Chaney. " Hay, that's just my opinon, I could be wrong".

 

[DaveNF2G]

How are they going to do that?

Move "public safety" out of Part 90 and into a new part?

How do you define "public Safety radios"?

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? The FCC can structure the Rules any way they want to. They can also do what I suggest within the current rule structure.