What does interoperabilty mean to you for public saftey?

[hitechRadio]

No argument here! on the cost of an APX7000.

The manufactures actually can hinder the process of interoperability, I know dang well the APX line could have TRBO in it. Both Phase1 and DMR at the same time, don't see why not, they can already do P1 and P2. But I am not on there engineering payroll either.

Do I think its going to happen? Dought it, could you imagine if the released a TRBO option in the APX line. I believe I would bail on a small P25 network. And go TRBO. I imagine Moto thinks the same way.

But demand does drive cost, lot more apple phones out there than APX's. Even so APX still to high.

Honestly I like TRBO better than P25 as far as cost, features and the list goes on. And now they have voting. They Just keep adding features. Some that come standard, that are costly options on P25.

Do I think TRBO has a place in large simulcast or multisite metro or statewide systems, nope.
Do I think a smaller suburb agency that has a need for a trunked system install TRBO, nope.
They should add a site/s of another network if they have access to a state system or metro area nearby. Even though it may cost a little more.

 

[rapidcharger]

No argument here! on the cost of an APX7000.

The manufactures actually can hinder the process of interoperability, I know dang well the APX line could have TRBO in it. Both Phase1 and DMR at the same time, don't see why not, they can already do P1 and P2. But I am not on there engineering payroll either.

Do I think its going to happen? Dought it, could you imagine if the released a TRBO option in the APX line. I believe I would bail on a small P25 network. And go TRBO. I imagine Moto thinks the same way.

But demand does drive cost, lot more apple phones out there than APX's. Even so APX still to high.

Honestly I like TRBO better than P25 as far as cost, features and the list goes on. And now they have voting. They Just keep adding features. Some that come standard, that are costly options on P25.

Do I think TRBO has a place in large simulcast or multisite metro or statewide systems, nope.
Do I think a smaller suburb agency that has a need for a trunked system install TRBO, nope.
They should add a site/s of another network if they have access to a state system or metro area nearby. Even though it may cost a little more.

Dude, you are a gigantic ball of contradictions.

And the market forces that drive prices of consumer electronics are not the same ones that drive prices of government communications equipment. Demand has increased for digital trunking radios, there are more companies manufacturing them than ever before, in more countries than ever before, yet the price has sharply risen, at a rate far out of line with inflation.

Frankly, even if digital trunking never got off the ground, I'm not convinced analog conventional radios would be any cheaper at this point if the buyers, no matter how broke, can manage to find funding. (yes, another thread that uses Detroit as an example) There is no incentive for the supplier to do anything but raise prices.

 

[hitechRadio]

Dude, you are a gigantic ball of contradictions.

Dude, how am I being contradicting? The two ideas I posted, were just that ideas, I was not taking into account cost, they were hypothetical ideas after all.

It doesn't mean I don't know how things work today.



Cost of P25 subscribers has not sharply risen. I can purchase a P25 subscribers cheaper than I could 8 years ago. Prices may not have been in par with inflation, but they have not sharply risen. On the other hand they have not sharply dropped. Maybe you should define sharply.

If you are comparing an APX7000 to XTS1500 I could see where you think prices have sharply risen.But that's not exactly apples to apples comparison.

Demand and competition does have an effect, granted not the same effect as consumer electronics for sure, but it does have a effect. Like I said earlier, if a manufactures or vendor markets equipment to public safety, add XXX% to the price. Does not seem right , but that's just the way it is.

And I did not bring up the comparison of consumer vs. government electronics anyway. You can't tell me that if there where half as many Dualband public safety rated P25 radio's out there as Apple iphones, the price would not be lower.

 

[zz0468]

But if the system is setup correctly, even when heavily loaded, the system could easily handle 5 additional I/O Talkgroups.

As a blanket statement, that's not really accurate. A heavily loaded system will, by definition, have nearly all resources busy during busy traffic hours. Adding 5 additional talk groups could easily lead to queuing.

And all P25 trunked systems should have I/O TG's that exist on every radio on there system. And most users would be moved to those channels anyway during a wide area long lived emergency.

Again, as a blanket statement, I would have to disagree. Having interop talkgroups available makes sense, but how would one manage mobile and portable resources? There's only a finite number of possible ID's available, so bringing in out of area units and attempting to put them on a P25 trunked system is fraught with all sorts of complications.

In a regional system where all agencies are administered under a single authority, only then does this begin to make sense.

 

[zz0468]

...But if upgrading to digital because of narrowbanding or other reasons (as alot of agencies have done), i believe it should be P25 conventional.

May I ask why you feel it must be P25?

Or another option for a slightly larger town, if a state wide system exsist, and funding could be secured. Install 3 or 4 channel site. They would get all the benifits of a trunking system, but with minimal costs.

Throw out the minimal cost part of that, and perhaps some rational sense can be made from what you're advocating. In an environment where, say, the state and county are sharing or using similar systems, with an effective interop plan as part of that system, then adding a low capacity trunker to a small city or town that doesn't otherwise need trunking could make practical sense, even if it's not a cost saving.

It could allow interoperability between state/county/city resources on a common platform that could be made almost completely seamless.

But at "minimal cost"? Absolutely not.

 

[Jay911]

Having interop talkgroups available makes sense, but how would one manage mobile and portable resources? There's only a finite number of possible ID's available, so bringing in out of area units and attempting to put them on a P25 trunked system is fraught with all sorts of complications.

In a regional system where all agencies are administered under a single authority, only then does this begin to make sense.

A P25 system does have a finite number of subscriber IDs, but it's over 16 million, so even a statewide system should be able to accommodate 'visiting' subscribers. Even so, gateways make that less relevant. The provincial (statewide) system being built here has the built-in ability to patch any radio gear into one of the sites on wheels and extend the radios someone else brings with them onto the network. They've already used that during the flooding disaster here last year, bridging existing networks onto the SOWs (only them, because the main network isn't up yet). AFAIK, that only uses up one radio id per bridging device - not dozens for all the subscribers on the other side of the bridge.

 

[zz0468]

A P25 system does have a finite number of subscriber IDs, but it's over 16 million, so even a statewide system should be able to accommodate 'visiting' subscribers.

The task of managing 16 million potential ID's into a system for interoperability would be a nightmare task. The real number is likely to be far less than that, granted, but the ID's still would need to be managed under some common authority, unless the gateway you mention is implemented...

Even so, gateways make that less relevant. The provincial (statewide) system being built here has the built-in ability to patch any radio gear into one of the sites... ...AFAIK, that only uses up one radio id per bridging device - not dozens for all the subscribers on the other side of the bridge.

That's still a large expenditure of effort and money to bring in foreign units into a P25 trunking system.

Explain to me again how this is better than a conventional air interface for interoperability? I've never quite understood that concept. In terms of interoperability, it seems to be to be a solution that brings more problems to the party than it solves.

 

[hitechRadio]

As a blanket statement, that's not really accurate. A heavily loaded system will, by definition, have nearly all resources busy during busy traffic hours. Adding 5 additional talk groups could easily lead to queuing.



Again, as a blanket statement, I would have to disagree. Having interop talkgroups available makes sense, but how would one manage mobile and portable resources? There's only a finite number of possible ID's available, so bringing in out of area units and attempting to put them on a P25 trunked system is fraught with all sorts of complications.

In a regional system where all agencies are administered under a single authority, only then does this begin to make sense.

If the system is heavily loaded before an emergency hits, Hurrican, Tornado, Flooding as examples. There are many ways a system admin can shed some of the system usage. One way is thru Talk group priorities 2~9. (which should be setup already) 2 being assigned to the most essential Talkgroups. I do not recommend Ruthless Preemption, Top of Queue is preferred.
Also most administrator should have I/O TG's in there system. That all radio's on the system have, you can shed user's to these I/O TG's even further helping reduce system loading during an event.

Even blocking non-essential TG's to site/s in the effected area. Forcing a move to TG I/O's or other priority TG's.

Or you can issue a feature called storm plan, and force users on to particular TG'S. Rarely used but an option.

Bottom line 5 Guest TG's should barley impact the system, overall.

I would normally leave the Guest TG I/O's disabled until the need arises.


As far as guest I/O TG's on the system, that I had mentioned.
There would be complications with ID's as it currently stands. That's Y I mentioned the use of ESN's. Currently it would not be possible to avoid possible duplicate ID's. Even though there are a million some id's available, it would still be to risky.

The Idea of Guest TG I/O's would be, that when the help arrives, they would not have to run to the system admin to have there radio's programmed. Which takes time, and there can be complications, with radio's having password protection and use of ASK's.

It simply the idea of other agencies that could be possible from across the country, rolling on scene and the ability of there radio's ready to talk. Without having to go see a programming guru.

 

[hitechRadio]

Explain to me again how this is better than a conventional air interface for interoperability? I've never quite understood that concept. In terms of interoperability, it seems to be to be a solution that brings more problems to the party than it solves.

There are many advantages of bringing the visitors onto the the trunked system, Scanning, priority control, as examples.


Conventional I/O's would still be used, for example user has the same band but is some other digital mode other than P25, they could be moved to the Conventional Analog I/O's. Or possible for patching CV ANA I/O's for users on different bands.

Sometimes you need more coverage than a direct/simplex V,U,700 or 800 I/O's can provide.

As far as repeaters some towns if 800 may not even have the 8CALL and 8TAC repeaters setup or the repeaters possible would not cover the effected area very well for portable use. But the trunked systems site/s could cover the effected area.


A lot of times actually most the time it is boots on the ground portable type scenario, so to take advantage of the local trunked resource would be a good solution through the use of guest I/O's.IMO

Until then we will be either issuing out a limited number of cashed radio's to team leaders, or programming there radio's on the system. Which can seem like forever when disaster strikes. And they want interop now!

 

[hitechRadio]

May I ask why you feel it must be P25?

But at "minimal cost"? Absolutely not.

"P25?" Because it is the Interoperabilty standard for Public safety.

"Minimal cost?" You may be suprised! I am not talking about a master site, which is wayyyyy far more expensive than a site.
Out of curiosity how much do you think a 4 channel site would cost?

And as I said, if they were looking at going trunked anyway. P25 Trunked site could be very competitive instead of installing, say a TRBO, NXDN system.

 

[zz0468]

"P25?" Because it is the Interoperabilty standard for Public safety.

That's a poor answer. So is/was frequency modulation for many many decades. What is the specific advantage of P25 that makes it so much better than FM?

"Minimal cost?" You may be suprised! I am not talking about a master site, which is wayyyyy far more expensive than a site.
Out of curiosity how much do you think a 4 channel site would cost?

There are too many unknown variables, but I would budget $200K just for the RF hardware and ancillaries. 4 channels analog conventional, I would budget half that. Or less.

I'm leaving out shelters, power, towers, backhaul, etc. etc. etc.

And as I said, if they were looking at going trunked anyway. P25 Trunked site could be very competitive instead of installing, say a TRBO, NXDN system.

If one is to go trunked for a public safety system, it only makes sense to go P25 these days. But I disagree with you that it's the be all and end all of interoperability communications.

 

[zz0468]

There are many advantages of bringing the visitors onto the the trunked system, Scanning, priority control, as examples.

That's a minor advantage when comparing the total cost. What else?

Conventional I/O's would still be used, for example user has the same band but is some other digital mode other than P25, they could be moved to the Conventional Analog I/O's. Or possible for patching CV ANA I/O's for users on different bands.

Starts to sound pretty cumbersome. So, just throw an ACU1000 at the problem?

Sometimes you need more coverage than a direct/simplex V,U,700 or 800 I/O's can provide.

This can be true.

As far as repeaters some towns if 800 may not even have the 8CALL and 8TAC repeaters setup or the repeaters possible would not cover the effected area very well for portable use. But the trunked systems site/s could cover the effected area.

Some of that sounds like bad planning to me.

A lot of times actually most the time it is boots on the ground portable type scenario, so to take advantage of the local trunked resource would be a good solution through the use of guest I/O's.IMO

Or, and interop situation could find what the fire service has, which is P25 digital can create more problems that it solves on a fireground or localized disaster situation. They've also found that local infrastructure, i.e. fixed trunked systems don't necessarily have the required signal density to work in the needed environment. They rely heavily on analog simplex operations.

Until then we will be either issuing out a limited number of cashed radio's to team leaders, or programming there radio's on the system.

Both can be viable solutions, depending on the circumstances.

Which can seem like forever when disaster strikes. And they want interop now!

Indeed... which is why complete planning is essential.

I think you miss the points I'm trying to make. Interoperability is a multifaceted problem, and thinking that there is one out-of-the-box solution that will solve all the issues is just dead wrong.

I've worked with agencies that have a combination of trunked mutual aid talkgroups, dedicated multiband conventional analog fixed resources, cache radios, portable trunked sites (COW), and regional control over things like trunked system ID management.

The greater the variety of resources available, the more likely people will be able to communicate should the need arise.

P25 is NOT a one-stop-shop for all things interoperability, and it never will be.

 

[DisasterGuy]

I have to agree with zz0468's last comments. In Maryland we have statewide planning for P25 trunked system management (Radio IDs, TGIDs, etc), regional overlay systems, a statewide 700 P25 system with interop talk groups and regionally governed systems to offer repeaters providing either on street or in building portable coverage for 8call90, 8tac91 - 8tac94 and at several sites the full VHF and UHF national interops. We also have many regions with investments in radio caches and SOWs.

There is no single solution however it all starts with planning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk