The view from here
As a system administrator (800 MHz analog migrating to P25), COM-L and interoperability planner, this stuff is at the heart of what I do for a living every day.
Interoperability is not, as alleged earlier, simply a sales tool for manufacturers to use to sell more radios. It is and has for years (well before 9/11) been a major concern for first responders which manufacturers have used to their advantage like any good sales force, for which I can't fault them at all.
It's my opinion that at the very least, all agencies within a single county should be able to communicate with one another seamlessly and instantly without any intervention on someone else's part. No patching or cross-band repeating should be necessary, no carrying multiple single-band radios (or expensive multi-band radios), or fancy gadgets in the trucks, it should be seamless and instantaneous at the flip of a channel knob. Whether this happens on a simple analog VHF or UHF (or low-band!) repeater system, a shared local or regional trunked system or a big shared statewide system, everyone in a county should be on the same page.
The plain and simple fact is that, despite the claims of some who have posted in this thread that trunked systems aren't necessary and that the taxpayer (of whom I'm also one) is being soaked for no good reason, the RF spectrum (especially VHF and UHF) has finite resources under ever-increasing pressure, and there just aren't enough resources available for conventional systems to be effective for anything much larger than a rural area. Mid-size and urban areas have long realized that no matter what band they use, trunked systems provide a way to maximize effective use of those finite resources.
Yes, trunked systems cost more and digital trunked systems even more still, but with a standards-based system agencies have choices and can get the radio that suits their needs at a cost not much more than a good quality analog radio. Group purchasing brings the cost down still further. It might be a more expensive radio than the business grade radio some of you feel is perfectly acceptable for public safety use, but in my firefighting days I certainly wouldn't have wanted to carry one of those things into a burning building; it would probably melt before I did and certainly wouldn't survive the soaking it might get.
There is no "one size fits all" solution. It's up to each locale to determine their needs and the best use of their funding; if they determine that a NXDN or TRBO solution is the best fit for their funding, that's their decision. They'll still have to plan for how to communicate with surrounding counties, but if it works for them and allows them to seamlessly communicate with other agencies in their county, so be it. Even so, this is one reason shared regional and state systems are becoming more and more popular; its a way for everyone to get the communications resources they need, at a lower overall cost for everyone, with the added bonus of seamless interoperability.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter which technological solution a particular area chooses, as long the solution meets their needs and there are plans, policies and procedures in place and practiced, so that everybody can communicate when push comes to shove, as quickly and as easily as possible.
At it's heart (and has been mentioned earlier), interoperability is a state of mind. The agencies involved have to want to talk to each other, there need to be detailed plans in place for how to make it happen, and personnel have to be educated to make proper use of the tools and techniques. Most agencies do want to be able to communicate with their neighbors, and the need for it happens more often that some people might think. Unfortunately, technology is the easy part; it's the planning and education part that typically falls short.
As a system administrator (800 MHz analog migrating to P25), COM-L and interoperability planner, this stuff is at the heart of what I do for a living every day.
Interoperability is not, as alleged earlier, simply a sales tool for manufacturers to use to sell more radios. It is and has for years (well before 9/11) been a major concern for first responders which manufacturers have used to their advantage like any good sales force, for which I can't fault them at all.
It's my opinion that at the very least, all agencies within a single county should be able to communicate with one another seamlessly and instantly without any intervention on someone else's part. No patching or cross-band repeating should be necessary, no carrying multiple single-band radios (or expensive multi-band radios), or fancy gadgets in the trucks, it should be seamless and instantaneous at the flip of a channel knob. Whether this happens on a simple analog VHF or UHF (or low-band!) repeater system, a shared local or regional trunked system or a big shared statewide system, everyone in a county should be on the same page.
The plain and simple fact is that, despite the claims of some who have posted in this thread that trunked systems aren't necessary and that the taxpayer (of whom I'm also one) is being soaked for no good reason, the RF spectrum (especially VHF and UHF) has finite resources under ever-increasing pressure, and there just aren't enough resources available for conventional systems to be effective for anything much larger than a rural area. Mid-size and urban areas have long realized that no matter what band they use, trunked systems provide a way to maximize effective use of those finite resources.
Yes, trunked systems cost more and digital trunked systems even more still, but with a standards-based system agencies have choices and can get the radio that suits their needs at a cost not much more than a good quality analog radio. Group purchasing brings the cost down still further. It might be a more expensive radio than the business grade radio some of you feel is perfectly acceptable for public safety use, but in my firefighting days I certainly wouldn't have wanted to carry one of those things into a burning building; it would probably melt before I did and certainly wouldn't survive the soaking it might get.
There is no "one size fits all" solution. It's up to each locale to determine their needs and the best use of their funding; if they determine that a NXDN or TRBO solution is the best fit for their funding, that's their decision. They'll still have to plan for how to communicate with surrounding counties, but if it works for them and allows them to seamlessly communicate with other agencies in their county, so be it. Even so, this is one reason shared regional and state systems are becoming more and more popular; its a way for everyone to get the communications resources they need, at a lower overall cost for everyone, with the added bonus of seamless interoperability.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter which technological solution a particular area chooses, as long the solution meets their needs and there are plans, policies and procedures in place and practiced, so that everybody can communicate when push comes to shove, as quickly and as easily as possible.
At it's heart (and has been mentioned earlier), interoperability is a state of mind. The agencies involved have to want to talk to each other, there need to be detailed plans in place for how to make it happen, and personnel have to be educated to make proper use of the tools and techniques. Most agencies do want to be able to communicate with their neighbors, and the need for it happens more often that some people might think. Unfortunately, technology is the easy part; it's the planning and education part that typically falls short.
Last edited: