EDACS Provice in OKC

[2112]

I don't look at the ProVoice as bad b/c I can't listen to it. I think of the defined "interoperability patches" as just that - patches (read: fixes).

I can see where you might confuse different definitions of the same word. These are two definitions of "patch" taken from dictionary.com:

"A small piece of material affixed to another, larger piece to conceal, reinforce, or repair a worn area, hole, or tear."

"A temporary, removable electronic connection, as one between two components in a communications system."

Perhaps "patch" isn't the best word to describe the interconnections between OKC's system and the surrounding area's systems just because of this possible ambiguity. Regardless, removable electronic connections form the basis of pretty much all communications systems, so the idea of a radio "patch" is not a bad one or a stop-gap measure. But I could also call them "interconnections".

... the State of CO just authorized the 7100IP series radios for use on their P25 network, bringing the total number of authorized manufacturers up to 4 on that system).

Good deal. I'm all about competition.

So say everyone does go EDACS in OKC area. What happens when you want to talk to Tulsa (who is MOT II - analog - no digital interop yet). Or what happens when the network stretches all the way to the Northern border of OK - to KASIS - the new P25 newtork - or NW to Colorado's P25 network? Or Arkansas' new P25 network.

We make interconnections. Even if all the systems were P25, there would still be lots of occasions to make interconnections.

If we're thinking of interoperability with different areas, I would think the smart thing to do would be to define the "area" or interest. The Metro? The State? The S Central US? The Continental US? All US? N.America???

Exactly. This is precisely why we have to consider more than one solution... Not everyone will want to ban together with their neighbors, not everyone has the same needs, and not everyone has the same resources. It also allows the competition necessary to keep prices down and the technologies driving forward.

My thought, freqscout, is that currently, there is no APCO user that is completely left out by the OKC system. Then again, I'm not all-knowing.

 

[woodyrr]

It is entirely possible that I have my wires crossed and my information mangled, but here goes


I tried to edit my post and managed to delete most of it. Talk about inept!
It was all there when I clicked "save" but it was gone when the screen refreshed.

Does anybody know how to get it back?

 

[mam1081]

I'll just make one comment on that (not that I don't want to say more - I just want to see other people's reactions):

....
3). While currently the only P25 trunked systems in Oklahoma County of which I am aware is the Federal Transfer Center at the Airport, Tinker AFB is apparently moving rapidly toward a P25 TRS.

That is NOT a P25 system. That is a Motorola Type II system with APCO-25 voice channels. The data channel has to be APCO-25 for it to be a "true" P25 system.

 

[2112]

It is entirely possible that I have my wires crossed and my information mangled, but here goes


I tried to edit my post and managed to delete most of it. Talk about inept!
It was all there when I clicked "save" but it was gone when the screen refreshed.

Does anybody know how to get it back?

Here's your post again, Woody:

It is entirely possible that I have my wires crossed and my information mangled, but here goes…

The APCO P25 issue is not Motorola vs. M/A-COM; The issue is APCO P25 vs. EDACS. APCO P25 is not a Motorola protocol; It was developed by the Association of Public Communications Officers organization. The reason why Motorola dominates the APCO P25 market is that Motorola, whether willingly or grudgingly, recognized very early, the long term advantage of building trunked radio systems to a world-wide standard. M/A-COM, to their credit, has recently begun to market its APCO P25 compliant radio system and I welcome M/A-COM and any others to the APCO P25 competitive marketplace.

There is no reason why EDACS couldn’t be the standard for the Oklahoma City metro, however, I propose that there are compelling reasons why it shouldn’t be.

1). APCO P25 is a long-established world-wide radio protocol that is open to any manufacturer that is willing to build to that standard. One manufacturer need no longer have a monopoly on radio systems or equipment. Agencies are building new integrated P25 systems at a phenomenal rate.

2). For cash strapped communities, P25 is the only protocol recognized by the Federal Government as being eligible for Federal funding I’m given to understand.

3). While currently the only P25 trunked systems in Oklahoma County of which I am aware is the Federal Transfer Center at the Airport, Tinker AFB is apparently moving rapidly toward a P25 TRS.

4). P25 testing is in progress on the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety Statewide system within the city of Tulsa. With increasing Federal pressure toward P25, I expect the statewide system to slowly but surely migrate to P25 as circumstances permit.

5). The city of Norman is expanding its TRS and could possibly integrate it into the statewide system. It appears that the city of Moore is definitely integrating into the statewide system. Within the past days, two new talkgroups have been added to the database on the statewide system for the Village / Nichols Hills Fire department; A department which might have benefited by affiliating with the OKC EDACS (thanks whomever for the update!).

6). From an interoperability and coverage standpoint, it appears to me to be that the smart and economical move by a metro community desiring to “go trunked” is to integrate with the statewide system and avail itself of the option to intercommunicate with and roam within the growing plethora of agencies that are affiliated with that system. (what an impressive list!). More than adequate intercommunication with Oklahoma City can be eventually achieved through the OKC to DPS patches.

7). I have heard it said on more than one occasion, and at the national level, that the two United States cities that have their acts together when it comes to dealing with terrorism (replace with “disasters”) are New York City and Oklahoma City. I hope that we never experience anything as drastic as we have, but when it happens, with regard to communications, I hope that the above statement holds true.
__________________
RDW

 

[2112]

All this seems pretty reasonable... just a few comments:

2). For cash strapped communities, P25 is the only protocol recognized by the Federal Government as being eligible for Federal funding I’m given to understand.

I'm not sure if this is true. I can't remember if OKC was awarded any federal funds for their system.

5). ... Within the past days, two new talkgroups have been added to the database on the statewide system for the Village / Nichols Hills Fire department; A department which might have benefited by affiliating with the OKC EDACS (thanks whomever for the update!).

That V/NHFD have talkgroups on the state system doesn't mean that they can't be patched to the OKC system. In fact, the very idea of having a talkgroup on the state system may make it *easier* to patch to the OKC system.

6). From an interoperability and coverage standpoint, it appears to me to be that the smart and economical move by a metro community desiring to “go trunked” is to integrate with the statewide system and avail itself of the option to intercommunicate with and roam within the growing plethora of agencies that are affiliated with that system. (what an impressive list!). More than adequate intercommunication with Oklahoma City can be eventually achieved through the OKC to DPS patches.

This is quite reasonable. There's no question to me that the OKC system cost truckloads of cash, and patches or not, the spread of agencies affiliated with the state system is substantial.

Agencies needing the feature set that EDACS provides and has access to more cash can buy their EDACS system or affiliate with the OKC or another system and patch to the state system.

7). I have heard it said on more than one occasion, and at the national level, that the two United States cities that have their acts together when it comes to dealing with terrorism (replace with “disasters”) are New York City and Oklahoma City. I hope that we never experience anything as drastic as we have, but when it happens, with regard to communications, I hope that the above statement holds true.

Like you, I hope this is true. However, what I've seen in terms of politics and public complacency, there is an even-money chance that this is not the case. Even as early as 2-3 years after the 1999 OKC Tornado, I started to see "it'll never happen to us" attitudes popping back in to reassure the vote-buyers that it's "ok" to not spend cash on severe-weather preparedness. And that's here, square in the center of Tornado Alley. Now that it's been 7 years, I'm sure the complacency level is plenty worse.

In the end, I think we're living in a fantasyland if we think that every agency out there is going to step up to the same technology platform on their own. The egos involved in public safety alone are enough to prevent that from happening. Even if they were all on the same system, I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think that all those agencies would want to talk to each other at any given time. I've seen the "I'm not working with him because he's an a**hole" attitude many times, too. And then, interoperability can easily be prevented between those systems at the user level by just not programming talkgroups into the users' radios.

I think it's important to remember that radio system integration is just a small piece of the interoperability pie. Things like this and also bridging the language gaps are easy to talk about and put down on paper. The biggest dominos of all to fall are getting over the egos and complacency, and getting out there and drilling. Without these, integrated radio systems and language uniformity are worthless.

It's also important to remember that communications is all about the ability to make diverse connections between diverse nodes. How these connections are made should generally be kept as simple as possible. However, where the connections cannot be made so simply, connections should still be made, and any truly interoperable radio system will be able to do that.

 

[woodyrr]

2112,

Thank you very much for recovering my post.

Your comments about the human factors with regard to interoperability even where it is possible are well taken and your proposed solutions are about as much as can be done.

mam 1081,

Thanks for the correction about the FTC system. I see now that a P25 TRS would be labeled "P25 Standard" or the like under system type.

______________________

My post was less about interoperability as it was about compatability and competition in the trunked radio marketplace. The best radio that I ever had the opportunity to bleat into didn't have an "M" on it anywhere, but it worked on the same systems as the "M" and "G"radios did. Although I don't imagine that I will have a need to chatter on the radio, I'd like to see the same thing happen with trunked communications systems.

As to the requirement that new equipment conform to P25 standards to qualify for Federal funding, I'd like to see a difinitive statement on that myself. It may be one of those things that has been repeated so often that it is assumed to be true.

The correction that I was trying to make was APCO stands for Association of Public-Safety Communications Officers.

 

[2112]

2112, Thank you very much for recovering my post.

My pleasure.

Your comments about the human factors with regard to interoperability even where it is possible are well taken and your proposed solutions are about as much as can be done.

It's really a shame that egos, attitudes, and complacency are a problem. One side of the coin says that it's the result of human nature. However, the other side of the coin says "hey... these people are being paid with my tax dollars to do a job, not apply personal preferences in response to emergency situations". Unfortunately, while the latter is true, practical reality has supported the egos, attitudes, and complacency. Except for the worse cases, and prolly even only those that received any media attention (read: risked loss of votes) are people removed from their positions when these egos etc., have cost the public dearly. The reason that I have doubts about whether or not the OKC metro has it's act together is that I regularly hear metro-area public safety officials say things that would make any reasonable person's head spin. It's actually quite depressing at times to think that our hard-spent tax dollars buy this crap.

My post was less about interoperability as it was about compatability and competition in the trunked radio marketplace. The best radio that I ever had the opportunity to bleat into didn't have an "M" on it anywhere, but it worked on the same systems as the "M" and "G"radios did. Although I don't imagine that I will have a need to chatter on the radio, I'd like to see the same thing happen with trunked communications systems.

You're right, and I apologize for getting off-track some. Moving back to the radio side of the pie, the best radios I've ever used were also not /\/\. The bad part of this is that these "best" radios are *extremely* expensive. However, /\/\ is the market leader in public-safety radio, and my experience with them for public-safety radio system applications has been quite favorable. Much more favorable than with other providers. So much so that I choose to use /\/\ radio products in my personal vehicles. This personal preference means nothing at purchase time for my agencies if /\/\ doesn't do what I need them to do.

I know this may be difficult to believe, but TRS technology is not that old in the grand sceme of things. Given time, I think an open standard will rise to the top, much as been the case with most of the other big-ticket technology that's out there. For a long time, the open standard in public-safety radio was analog conventional unencrypted wideband FM. Even that had to rise up from a group of other combinations. This mode of operation has physical limitations that, taken with spectrum limitations and user needs, have resulted in many new technologies being developed. A new standard will eventually rise from all of this. How long it will be until that standard rises, how long this standard remains, and if the new standard rises before a new group of technologies starts up remains to be seen; technology develops derned fast these days. The competition out there drives all of this.

 

[2112]

Please excuse if it's been discussed before: I wonder if there have been any talks between OKC, AEP, and OG&E in regards to patching between the EDACS systems if needed? Of course, that would prolly take a *generous* donation of time/equipment on AEP's and OG&E's part to make that happen... but it if did, we might have a substantial backup to the statewide TRS if we ever needed one. We might even be able to go out to other states in this manner. That would be truly impressive.

 

[mam1081]

Please excuse if it's been discussed before: I wonder if there have been any talks between OKC, AEP, and OG&E in regards to patching between the EDACS systems if needed? Of course, that would prolly take a *generous* donation of time/equipment on AEP's and OG&E's part to make that happen... but it if did, we might have a substantial backup to the statewide TRS if we ever needed one. We might even be able to go out to other states in this manner. That would be truly impressive.

I'm sure they could be - or those 800 EDACS systems could be "PROFILE" 'd into the PD's radios fairly easily.

The site aliases would probably get messed up b/c EDACS systems don't have a "key" like /\/\ systems (unless it's ESK'd). Site 1 in OKC could be site 1 somewhere else (like in OG&E's system). Each "system" should only have one of each site number. Having multiple systems in the user radios might confuse the radio if it was in range of two site 1's (but then the radio would look to see what channel and LCN the data channel was on and could probably reject the bogus one). Confusing yet? I don't know if I'm communicating what I think would happen very well.

When the initial press release crom M/A Com (or Ericsson if it was that long ago) came out about OKC's new system, they mentioned the % of the state that was now covered by an 800 MHz EDACS system. I want to say it was around 60%, but can't remember. I'm pretty sure it's more than the State of OK Smartzone system covers now (at least to the S and SW). I'll have to see if I can find that later and re-post it.


Just curious - what vendor and model was the "best" radio you've ever used, 2112? What models of /\/\ do you have now that you consider "good"? I don't want to change the topic of the thread - just want to see. Thanks.

 

[EDACS-Master]

The State is covered about 90 to 98% with EDACS, (AEP, OG&E, OKC, BA, Bix & Jenks).

 

[mam1081]

The State is covered about 90 to 98% with EDACS, (AEP, OG&E, OKC, BA, Bix & Jenks).

How is that calculated? If there is a system in a county, is that considered "covered" - or is it area that has a >90% (or some other number) reliability of coverage from a mobile?

 

[freqscout]

Edacs

Well OG&E and the city are working together for establishing a relationship for recovery after and during an incident. There is no talk of joining radio systems however.

Well if I travel to Tulsa for a large event why don't I just use NPSPAC channels. These operate outside of the boundaries of digital protocol or user access (talk group permits) since they are simple analog repeaters that cover the same areas as the TRS and do not require me to be on anything other than an 800 radio with PL. Why not just use these for interoperability in a large scenario since that is what they are designed for?

The NPSPAC channels were designed for multiple user access without the need for compatible digital protocols. If we sent a contingency of officers to anywhere in the US that has an 800 mhz TRS then we could talk to anyone else that had a radio there via the NPSPAC channels. There would be no way for me or anone with the same protocol to tallk on that system without a digital id permit from the syste and the corresponding talkgroups programmed into our radios any how. Since there is no digital on NPSPAC the question of standard kinda goes out the door since you can't talk on the digital TG's anyways.

And while I am thinking about it, how much more interoperable are the state's radios? The individual agencies do not all have each other's TG's programmed into them. They use the SMA's and the RMA's to talk to each other. We have the RMA's linked (not patched by definition) into the city system for access so why would I need a DPS system radio? It appears that the state system radios are just accomplishing the same thing that we are, talking on the MA talkgroups. We might not have them all linked but that can be accomplished easily enough. Then we are not totally dependent on the State's system. What if there is a catasrophic failure of the DPS system and we have all of our eggs in one big basket? Everyone goes down except simplex and NPSPAC operations just like in New Orleans. We don't lose our system too the way it is now. They switch to the corresponding NPSPAC and are back on the air if there is coverage in that area where they are at and we do the same if ours goes. It is all kind of solved within the NPSPAC reserves if we all look forward and plan ahead. As far as linking into other agencies, we have the Tactical Communications Bridges for use when there is no TRS. Google it, they are sweet.

Dinner calls.

 

[WX5JCH]

I get AEP, (EDACS), and OK gas systems (900 mhz Moto), all the way out here in Elk city. AEP has new towers in Sayre and Cheynne. I hear OKC talkgroups occational out here along with the local crews. That would be a perfect solution as they seem to have excellent communications.

btw, OK state comm techs were here yesterday working on the OHP 154.935-159.210 link, still not working right but it will be nice as the tower is just a few miles from me

Jim

 

[2112]

I'm sure they could be - or those 800 EDACS systems could be "PROFILE" 'd into the PD's radios fairly easily.

The site aliases would probably get messed up b/c EDACS systems don't have a "key" like /\/\ systems (unless it's ESK'd). Site 1 in OKC could be site 1 somewhere else (like in OG&E's system). Each "system" should only have one of each site number. Having multiple systems in the user radios might confuse the radio if it was in range of two site 1's (but then the radio would look to see what channel and LCN the data channel was on and could probably reject the bogus one). Confusing yet? I don't know if I'm communicating what I think would happen very well.

Nah... it's all good and makes sense. Seems like a with a little coordination and interoperation, we'd be able to get past this.

Just curious - what vendor and model was the "best" radio you've ever used, 2112? What models of /\/\ do you have now that you consider "good"? I don't want to change the topic of the thread - just want to see. Thanks.

My opinion is that Wulfsberg (http://www.wulfsberg.com/) equipment blows Motorola out of the water, but that's just me. Of course, I'll not be affording any of that equipment anytime soon. Right now, I'm using:

Mobile/base: MCS2000 (excellent), CDM1250 (very good), M1225 (good)
Portable: MTS2000 (excellent), HT1250 (very good)

I'll leave it at for now to keep the thread on-topic.

 

[2112]

Well if I travel to Tulsa for a large event why don't I just use NPSPAC channels...

The NPSPAC channels were designed for multiple user access without the need for compatible digital protocols...

And while I am thinking about it, how much more interoperable are the state's radios?

Good points, as usual. I forgot about those NPSPAC channels. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when the TGs aren't programmed for whatever reason... whether it's because personnel are way out of their home area or because people want to be silly about working with their neighbors.

 

[mam1081]

Good points, as usual. I forgot about those NPSPAC channels. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when the TGs aren't programmed for whatever reason... whether it's because personnel are way out of their home area or because people want to be silly about working with their neighbors.

If you, as a radio-friendly guy, forgot about them, how many cops (or fire fighters) do you know that would remember to switch?

What about agencies not on 800? If you're visiting from an outside area, I doubt whatever metro you're going to will have their tactical comm bridge just sitting on your channel. I guess that's what 155.49 and 67 are for (for VHF). Another freq that used to be common (when I lived in another (more interoperable-friendly state) was 155.475. I have never heard anything on that in OK (but I don't listen to it much anymore).

 

[freqscout]

Well whatever the final result it is good to know that there are solutions in place that can cover just about any scenario. With the TCBs everything in the metro can made interoperable if it is not already. I would have to admit, even if I wasn't a regular user, that there is a great deal of thought, planning, and designing that went into the system and to making it work much better than anyting that was in place already.

 

[2112]

If you, as a radio-friendly guy, forgot about them, how many cops (or fire fighters) do you know that would remember to switch?

As it sits now, my agencies are all on VHF. The VHF mutual aid channels are implemented into our systems and operations. I think that the key to making sure that people remember that they are there and available (besides training) is to not program hundreds of channels that would never be used anyway. That way, the useful channels are not lost amongst those that aren't.

Another freq that used to be common (when I lived in another (more interoperable-friendly state) was 155.475. I have never heard anything on that in OK (but I don't listen to it much anymore).

I used to listed to 155.475 back in the day... I was advised that it was a "national law-enforcement calling frequency". Never really heard anything on it, though.

How exactly, do you quantify "interoperable-friendliness"?

 

[mam1081]

How exactly, do you quantify "interoperable-friendliness"?

Well, just about everywhere (except the major cities) is VHF (150-174) there. I think that solves a lot of the headaches (don't have to worry about different bands). All SO's monitor the 154.95 (Intercity mobile) and 155.37 (intercity base). There are standards (there could be similar things here too though) that every VHF radio should have TX LAW 1-3 and TX FIRE 1-3, all around the state. Users actually use those mutual aid channels too. I was driving through Hill/Johnson counties (just S of Ft. Worth) last year while some grass fires were happening, and all the VFD's where on TX FIRE 2. They got another agency to provide air support, and the airplane had it also. It was just great to see it all come together like that. The only thing that is changing in some of the rural areas is the migration to VHF P25 (still conventional). The I-20 corridor in W Texas seems to be at the front of this move. All these counties with very low population density and not much there have very nice radios!

This isn't to say that OK isn't friendly in the same respect. I just haven't seen it yet.

 

[2112]

I remember the good ol' days in NC Ohio when alot of police agencies were on 39.24 simplex and lots of fire agencies were on 46.06 simplex. It made scanning *real* easy

Oklahoma has about 1/6 of Texas's population, so, 1/6 the VHF mutual aid channels (or just 1) should suffice... but we have 4 (155.49, 155.67, 154.13 & 155.235). That means that OK's mutual-aid-channels-to-population-served ratio is roughly 4 times that of Texas's. Boomer Sooner!

Seriously, tho... if we just could people to use them I'd feel alot better. Being fair, once agencies starting getting their own repeaters, cross-agency traffic on the radio sure took a nose-dive. Sometimes I hear traffic on State Fire (154.13), but other than that, I don't hear anything. My thought is that this is related to the attitudes and training thing that we discussed earlier rather than the availability of channels. I wonder what percentage of law-enforcement agencies in the state who are licensed on 155.49 & 155.67 actually have radios programmed for them and a radio in the comm center listening on them.

Like Texas, Oklahoma is VHF pretty much everywhere except in the metros. Glaring exceptions include El Reno PD (UHF) and Mustang FD (800 conv analog). I'm sure they can talk to other agencies via other means, but it is admittedly difficult to think that these choices weren't poor, considering that the other agencies in their own cities are all on VHF. While I consider interoperability to be a concern secondary to primary operations, to me, primary operations includes proper intraoperability (that is, between all of a City's agencies). To me, being on the same band, having identical radios in all City vehicles, programmed identically, so there are no surprises to *any* user, are all a big part of intraoperability.