Interoperability: What's Impeding a National Communications System?

[Thunderbolt]

WASHINGTON -- It's interesting how issues become "the thing" in government. Following 9/11, when fire and police agencies had no radio contact with one another, communications interoperability became a high, national-level priority.

http://www.govtech.com/gt/401825

 

[kb2vxa]

Slappy

"If it's government approved it's got to be good for you."

 

[ElroyJetson]

It's tough enough to manage just the system data alone for a multisite trunked system. Add encryption and you've got to manage encryption keys for all users. Expand that to statewide systems and you've
suddenly got a full-time encryption administrator to handle encryption key distribution and security.

A national system would be a hairball of immense proportions. It would require a large administrative
staff just to keep it running. And how are you going to handle encryption keys and user talkgroup
assignments in a nationwide system with maybe a few million authorized users?

Such a system would be as complex as the phone system was in its early days but after it had
extended from coast to coast, and had grown further beyond that stage.

Dotting the entire country with tower sites that are all in visual range of the next linking tower would
by itself be a monumental achievement.


It would be better to deploy standardized UHF or VHF interoperability systems that are interlinked to
the local trunked systems. The VHF or UHF systems would be the same EVERYWHERE you go,
and be patchable into the local trunked systems witih dispatcher assistance.

With VOIP and ROIP technologies now widespread and readily available, that too is a huge aid when
striving for interoperability. It's now fairly easy to interlink any given radio into any other given radio
system, trunked or conventional.


CJ

 

[ab3a]

They don't even speak the same language!

Yeah, let's connect them. And then, when that happens, let's see if they use the same phonetic alphabet, whether the ten codes mean the same things, or whether they understand each other's reference waypoints.

This is one area where they could learn a great deal from air traffic controllers and pilots. They have common visual waypoints on their charts, they use the international phonetics alphabet, and they use carefully thought out pro-words and phrases to outline precisely what they're trying to say.

Frankly, if people from different countries can do it, I don't see why the police couldn't. However, with the tower of babble they have going right now, even if they did offer interconnects, it would confuse more than it would help.

 

[mikepdx]

What's Impeding a National Communications System?

My first guess would be a national debt rapidly approaching $10 Trillion.

Frankly, if people from different countries can do it, I don't see why the police couldn't....

You'd think so, however-
Several other countries have nationwide police communications systems...
BUT those countries are the size of many of our US states, and they're not bankrupting themselves
militarily policing every corner of the planet, and liberally peppering the world with foreign aid.

Not to mention, most times foreign countries have a single national police force
that covers the entire country. The head honcho makes the decision to implement.
It's done.

Unlike here in the good ole USA, with thousands of independent departments,
mired in their own political squabbles, vehemently protecting their own turf.

 

[KE0SKN]

the FCC needs to get there heads out of the trash and start to think with there heads and organize the VHF low and High Bands and do what the ham's do. expl: use 155.500 Neg off set of .6ooMhz start pairing up the frequencies and then you will have more room. Trunking in cities are ok but for counties and state wide system are costing use big to keep it up. VHF low and High along with UHF are great for large area. thats my 2cs worth.

 

[zz0468]

the FCC needs to get there heads out of the trash and start to think with there heads and organize the VHF low and High Bands and do what the ham's do. expl: use 155.500 Neg off set of .6ooMhz start pairing up the frequencies and then you will have more room. Trunking in cities are ok but for counties and state wide system are costing use big to keep it up. VHF low and High along with UHF are great for large area. thats my 2cs worth.

A gross over simplification that probably wouldn't work, but I am in agreement with the one unstated salient point you're trying to make - 700/800 MHz is NOT necessarily the right piece of spectrum for wide area, rural systems.

<rant>In general, most proposals for interoperability are a solution looking for a problem. Having a common platform can be helpful, but it certainly isn't a necessity. And at the price being paid for the latest P25 700/800 MHz wide area system, an unbiased cost/benefit analysis would probably show it to be a waste of money. Systems are increasingly expensive, hard to maintain, and reliability is suffering. The money to provide the necessary redundancies, and to eliminate common failure points, gets snipped at the first round of budgeting. And then when things fall on their face, many agencies are out of service, not just one or two.

Interoperability has become a dirty word for some of us. Not the concept it represents, but the fact that it's being driven by politicians who don't know enough to ask what's really needed.

</rant>

 

[ab3a]

You'd think so, however-
Several other countries have nationwide police communications systems...
BUT those countries are the size of many of our US states, and they're not bankrupting themselves
militarily policing every corner of the planet, and liberally peppering the world with foreign aid.

Not to mention, most times foreign countries have a single national police force
that covers the entire country. The head honcho makes the decision to implement.
It's done.

Unlike here in the good ole USA, with thousands of independent departments,
mired in their own political squabbles, vehemently protecting their own turf.

I didn't describe what I meant by "it" very well. I was thinking of aviation communications. You can take someone from just about any part of the world, and they can understand the aviation pro-phrases and waypoints. Air traffic controllers and pilots can do this because we have disciplined radio procedures that are well documented.

That's why I think there is reasonable hope of establishing a single nation wide radio communications use policy so that the police can work together with others as needed. However, until that's done, I don't see much point in making a nation-wide interoperable communications network. We'll have spent all those dollars and they won't know what their brothers and sisters in arms are saying. Sigh.

 

[zz0468]

A nationwide network is completely unnecessary. The cops in Southern California really don't need to talk on the radio to the firemen in Bangor, Maine. What's needed is common protocols, common air interfaces, and standardized training. Some of this we have, in an embryonic state. Interoperability is more of a regional issue. The regional, or county wide systems that go in are closer to what's needed, but frequently they miss the mark, primarily by trying to be a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[gmclam]

All we needed was some common frequencies that everyone could access with their analog radios. Instead we're being sold digital radios, proprietary protocols, and tons of infrastructure that will either not be used to its capacity, or is unable to function as "designed".

 

[jcooke]

The Department of Justice can't even put together a National Federal Law Enforcement system for Federal law enforcement agencies. Why would you expect that a National Law Enforcement radio system for local Police Dept could be put together.

 

[rescuecomm]

Common frequencies?

Vcall-Vtac1-Vtac2-Vtac3 - VHF interop frequencies
Ucall-Utac1-Utac2-Utac3-Utac4 - UHF interop frequency pairs (repeater ops)
Icall-Itac1-Itac2-Itac3-Itac4 - 800 MHZ interop frequency pairs (repeater ops)

Without any education of the public safety command staff, having the FCC create the above freqs was a useless gesture. I heard a couple of firemen talking on VTAC1 the other day, wondering what the channel is for? It is the same group that fails to switch to talkaround when going to interior attack. In the city, it is okay. Some places out in the contract areas, they can't hit the repeater on the WT and wonder why no one replies. On our search and rescue groups, I was told to leave off the PL on channel 5 to be able to talk to the neighboring counties teams. I said, "why not use VTAC1 or 2"? Was told that they don't use that. Our guys have been told many times not to use the dispatch channel for tactical comms as it is shared with other agencies. Apparently either attention deficits or selective hearing syndrome kicks in when this is discussed.

Bob

 

[Grog]

One reason that some can't use the new VHF interop frequencies is because of older gear that can't do narrowband. I have a selection of sabers that are about a rugged and capable as commercial radios go, but I'd be limited to various wideband frequencies such as the 154.280, 154.265, 154.295, 155.160, 155.280 etc frequencies.


As far as people needing training, yes, of course there should be yearly (or more) training on how to use the communications equipment but we all that gets shortchanged like other important things. I remember a fire where I walked up to the fire chief and told him if he'd switch to our fireground channel (a simplex frequency) we all might actually hear each other.

Later I explained to some of the others how it works a lot better when you transmit a signal to someone 100ft away instead of a repeater that is 30 miles away. If that didn't work I was prepared to get hand puppets to act it out :lol:

 

[rescuecomm]

Hand puppets?? You ain't right Grog. Ha Ha! The problem on having narrowband capable radios is really going to rear it's head in a couple of years. There are rumblings about my county narrowbanding its comms well before the mandate. That will initiate a mini-911 for local rescue units other than mine. There are quite a few GP300's and P50's still in use around here. An EMS employee asked me what was a good portable radio to use on narrowband so something has to be afoot. As to the comm training, I was discussing getting some Icom F3061S radios in the next several months. The 528 channel capacity and the display would really help with the interop freqs and fire dept freqs I would like to have in the radios. It came to me after watching them try my F30GS, that multiple banks and scan lists might be a little trying to most of the members. Maybe 16 channels is really enough for the average public safety volunteer. Anyone have experience with this?

Bob

 

[Grog]

Maybe 16 channels is really enough for the average public safety volunteer. Anyone have experience with this?

Towards the end of my volunteer days (97-99) my dept had some Kenwood TK-270s that only had 16 of the 32 channels programmed. I got permission to have the rest filled up since I worked in another county so I had quite a few RX and a couple TX channels added. So back then 16ch was enough for what we did, but now with so many extra channels some areas have I could see a 16ch radio being a limitation.

Say you used six channels in your everyday needs, I could see a radio with multiple zones having those six channels being the first six channels in every zone so you would always have immediate access to them. Then the other zones could have whatever extra things you need/want.


OK, I was bored, I made a quick template with two other counties listed as "AC" and "BC". I also listed "Fire Talkaround" as the 1st and last channel so it would be easy to find without looking, just turn it all the way in either direction (works well for radios with a channel stop, not so well for continuous rotation knob equipped radios).

This was based on my last county of residence and a general listing of some of what their radios had (just moved around a bit with some fictional things added) so most of your radios would not have a medical helicopter frequency but they talk direct to Med Center Air on their VHF frequency instead of having the helo go to a tac channel.

 

[Don_Burke]

When you try to make a community that needs 800 MHz to get inside buildings interoperable with a community that needs VHF low to get across mountain ranges, expect issues.

Throw in politics and you really have your hands full.