|
^
Site
Links
| |
|
|
|
Grants and Consulting: Been there,
done that.
|
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program (AFG)
 |
We will be happy to
provide industry-standard non-specific budgetary pricing for any local
or regional communications grant application |
|
We know the ins and outs
of the AFG process, what qualifies and what doesn't. |
|
Under the FY2010 AFG
rules, we will decline to consult on any local project where we may be
a potential bidder, BUT... |
|
For any agency outside
our normal service area, please contact us for assistance on writing
your grant proposal for:
Regional communications
systems, equipment and plans
Single Agency mobile and portable equipment, radios or pagers
Single Agency fixed infrastructure
And from out electrical contracting side, information on firehouse
electrical or standby generator modifications.
|
|
You gotta have a plan...
Things you know:
| Our radios are falling apart, or
have quit working reliably. |
| We can't talk to each other at an
incident scene. |
| We're better off calling Dispatch
on the cell, IF we get a signal. |
| Where do we need to be in five
years? |
Things you DON'T Know:
| What equipment is available, and
what do we really need, vs. what our local vendor is telling us. |
| What the industry standards for
communication protocols or procedures are. |
| How to get our volunteers off
dead-center and moving forward. |
| We've heard of "Radio Propagation
Studies", but have no idea what they are or where to get one. |
|
Our Consulting Services:
|
|
Specific equipment quotes (mobiles,
portables, pagers, fixed infrastructure).
|
|
Non-manufacturer specific equipment
budgetary pricing, advice and planning.
|
|
Interoperability and Communication Protocol
public speaking programs for agency and other group meetings (ie,
'ticking' them off, getting them off dead-center, letting an outsider
get them all riled up...)
|
|
Investigation and written assessment
reporting of existing conditions and equipment life cycle.
|
|
Complete radio propagation and engineering
services.
|
|
Site and existing operational surveys and
studies.
|
|
Five-Year and Ten-Year Master Communication
Plans to comply with NFPA 1561.
|
|
Complete (!) written radio study for your
city / county / region.
|
|
We offer complete propagation
and radio site study services.
Please contact us with
the details of your project for a system quote. |
|
   
   |
| |
In My Opinion:
|
| The following are the
opinions and views of the web page author,
and I can't blame anyone else. Please feel free
to cut, copy, paste or reuse my own material as you wish as long as due
credit is given. |
| October, 2009 (Check
back, its still being edited...) |
| |
Current topics and considerations
from others:
This guy nails it pretty much every time!
|
| |
Thanks for visiting my personal
web log. This venue is a place for me to share my thoughts and ideas
with friends, colleagues. and anyone else who might care to know my
opinions and observations. Please feel free to comment on what you read
here by sending me e-mail.
I am a serial entrepreneur in the
telecommunications field with focus on developing advanced technology
for public safety. My associates and I design, build, and maintain
telephone and data communications systems for the police, fire and
emergency medical sector. We are contractually responsible for more than
twenty-five E911 dispatch centers, hundreds of base stations, dozens of
radio sites and 80 fire stations in the San Francisco Bay Area. I live
and work in San Mateo County, California.
I’ve been active in the
open-source software community for many years, with particular interest
in applying open-source solutions to local government. My current
avocation is learning to produce and edit professional quality video
(Final Cut Pro with a Sony PMW-EX3 camera) as a way to provide training
on technical subjects for first responders.
Please contact me by e-mail if you
have questions or comments.
daryl@tcomeng.com
For more information about my
companies and non-profit organization, please see:
|
Only a small percentage of
problems with digital trunked radio systems are reported by the
news media, however there are a sufficient number of stories to
establish reasonable doubt as to the suitability of these systems.
In fact, there is a clear pattern that would cause a reasonable
and prudent person to entertain a strong and honest suspicion as
to the suitability of this technology for mission-critical public
safety radio communication.
How widespread are these
problems? I would like to hear your story if you are a first
responder and rely on a digital trunked radio system for essential
communication.
Click here to send me e-mail.
In some cases, public-safety
executives issue gag orders that bar employees and contractors
from discussing system shortcomings. Employees face disciplinary
action for talking about the communications systems that they rely
on for personal safety.
Sometimes it’s best to call the baby ugly.
Your e-mail and periodic
Internet searches have revealed numerous stories about digital
trunked radio system problems. Here are links to a some of the
stories.
Click here to learn about the real
difference between digital and analog.
|
Posted on February 20th, 2009
Large, multi-zone digital trunked radio
systems can be so fragile that too many users merely listening to
the system can cause problems. Such was the case during the
aftermath of a catastrophic collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge
over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis on the evening of August
1, 2007.The State of Minnesota
Department of Public Safety commissioned GeoComm Consultants to
evaluate the performance of the State’s Motorola SmartZone digital
trunked radio system known as ARMER. The report is available for
your review by clicking on the link below. The report identifies a
dilemma that’s well-known by experienced digital trunked radio
system managers, but rarely considered by police and fire incident
commanders and executives.
Most digital trunked radio systems that
serve large geographic areas are comprised of subsystems for
specific geographic areas. These subsystems are linked together
and controlled by a centralized computer so that the subsystems
can act as one large system. Individual agency radios are “homed”
on the subsystem that provides the best coverage for their primary
geographic area. When an individual radio is operated outside of
its home zone, the central computer will attempt to make the
user’s talkgroup active in the zone where the user is currently
affiliated. Merely turning a radio on will cause the radio to
affiliate with the talkgroup. The act of merely listening can
consume limited resources and negatively affect communication at
the scene of the incident.
A trunked talkgroup will assume the
characteristics of whatever sites get added to a call. If a user
is on a site that has only a few channels available, the system
may not be able to assign a channel for the talkgroup and the user
who is attempting to transmit a message will get a busy signal,
even if there are enough channel resources at every other site
involved in the communication. To illustrate this point, consider
a major incident such as the bridge collapse where hundreds of
radio users throughout the large coverage area want to listen to
the critical incident, even if they are not directly involved.
This can cause the talkgroup that is being used for the incident
to become active in many zones where it wouldn’t normally be used.
If channels aren’t available in all of the zones where the
non-participant listeners are affiliated, the trunked radio system
will return a busy signal for the users who are directly involved
in the incident even if channels are available in the area near
the incident.
There are workarounds for this problem,
such as using a system mode that says “go ahead and transmit the
communication even if all sites do not have a channel available.”
Unfortunately, this mode of operation also means that users will
never be sure if messages are being broadcast in all of the zones
where the talkgroup is active. Managing talkgroups in a large
multi-zone system is extremely complex. Training non-technical
first responders to understand the limitations of the digital
trunked radio system is equally difficult. Failure to address both
issues will result in ineffective communication for first
responders and perceived system failures.
Generally speaking, communications
systems should only be as complex as needed to meet the business
requirements of the mission. Making a system unnecessarily complex
in anticipation of the unlikely need for wide area communication
may reduce the system’s effective reliability for routine
activities.
Addendum — 02/26/2009
This article has stirred spirited
discussion in several forums. The following information has been
culled from some of these discussions.
San Diego County operates a large
regional trunked radio system that is, arguably, one of the best
designed and managed systems of its kind. Many of the busies that
occurred during the 2003 and 2007 wildland fires were caused by
the problem I describe above. The system managers advise that the
key to solving the problem is: 1) recognizing the potential for it
to occur and geographically limiting user talk groups to the area
they normally operate in; 2) limiting the number of “system wide”
talk groups to the minimum number necessary, and 3) designing a
system capacity (number of channels) in the smaller sites to allow
for local operations plus a credible number of wide area
conversations at the same time.
One of the foremost experts in the field
reports another example occurring in Colorado during a State
Chiefs Association meeting in Denver a few years ago. The chiefs
busied out the local 5-channel CCNC site because many of them
dragged their primary dispatch channel with them across the State.
The same thing happened during a tornado at Windsor, Colorado in
2008 when many of the responders tried to maintain communication
on their primary talkgroup and busied out the 5-channel CCNC site
that covers Windsor.
The I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota had
a similar problem, but not at the scene of the incident where they
had almost no busies. However, a few counties away sites were
busied out by everyone trying to listen to the various I-35
response talkgroups… again, the “casual listener.” Proper system
design, configuration and user taining can preclude this situation
from happening.
Another reader reports this issue in
Orange County and Orlando Florida during hurricanes and other
major events. The system managers had to disable wide-area
talkgroups that were not dedicated to interoperability. They had
about 75 wide area talkgroups between the two systems, and during
these high-volume events, went down to 10.
The facts are clear… It is critically
important for radio system users, engineers, and system managers
to understand this issue. San Diego RCS is a leader in the field
of user education. Contact Scott Gillis <scott.gillis at
sdsheriff.org> for information about his research in this area.
|
Last week someone sent me a copy
of a bid solicitation for
“P25 Professional Grade Portable Radios”
issued by Contra Costa County, California. Contra Costa County has
been in the news a lot lately because of its severe financial
problems. It’s financial condition is so bad that mass layoffs are
being considered,
including many of the deputy district attorneys
who are responsible for criminal prosecutions.
With this in mind, I thought it noteworthy that the County released a
bid package that is obviously intended for one bidder under the guise
of a competitive procurement.
Contra Costa County is one of
two counties that comprise the controversial
East Bay Regional Communications Systems
Authority known as EBRCSA. EBRCSA is
leading the effort to construct and operate a regional radio system
for first responders. While this is an admirable goal, EBRCSA has
focused on an unaffordable product from a single vendor. Funding for
EBRCSA comes largely from
Bay Area SUASI which is heavily influenced by
Motorola.
Contra Costa County’s radio bid
specification could serve as a model for other public entities that
desire to have an
incredibly expensive, prematurely obsolete and
marginally performing radio system
for its first responders.
Here are some key points that
you may wish to consider including in your P25 portable radio bid,
should you desire to follow the example set by Contra Costa County.
|
Make
no reference to
P25 product certification by an independent
testing laboratory. Managed in
partnership with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards, the P25 Compliance
Assessment Program is designed to provide first-responder agencies
with testing information that ensures that P25 equipment operates
and interoperates as specified by the standard. |
|
Include a specification
requiring compatibility with an obsolete, proprietary analog trunked
radio system known as SmartNet II, even though your city or county
does not and never will have a SmartNet II system. Justify this to
potential bidders as a requirement because a neighboring county has
a SmartNet II system, even though the neighboring county has
announced plans to replace it as soon as possible. Your desired
vendor makes SmartNet II equipment and this will help eliminate
other bidders from being considered. |
|
Do not include a specification
for P25 Phase II compliance. This will assure that all of the radios
will be
obsolete in 2017
and the vendor will be able to sell replacement radios. Planned
obsolescence is good, right? |
|
Include superfluous terms and
conditions in the bid specification that are not in any way related
to mobile and portable radios. References to asbestos removal,
toilet facilities, lead-based paint and land excavation will help
your RFQ look more credible. Long documents may be subjected to
less scrutiny. Include as much fluff as possible to get a high page
count. |
|
Don’t restrict your desired
vendor from invalidating all of the terms and conditions in your RFQ
by submitting a counter offer, or using a precedence of documents
clause in its proposal. |
|
Specify the IMBE vocoder as a
requirement, even though more robust P25 vocoders may be available.
Allow your preferred bidder to bid the oldest and most problematic
vocoder possible in order to maximize the profit potential for the
vendor. |
|
Do not make reference to
proprietary P25 extensions such as OmniLink in your RFQ. Add these
at the time of order, after the bid has been completed and can no
longer be easily scrutinized by the public. |
|
Do not specify any requirement
for
ambient noise rejection
or
useful battery life per charge.
A product from a non-favored brand might score much higher than what
you want to purchase. |
|
Specify the battery voltage,
the required number of lines on the LCD display, the quantity and
layout of the keys on the keypad, and the weight of the radio. This
is meaningless to the performance of the radio and may help
disqualify products from all but the preferred vendor. |
|
DO NOT include substantive
requirements related to: |
-
Extended warranties
-
Factory depot service
requirements
-
Perpetual firmware upgrades
without additional charge
-
Number of years of guaranteed
product support and parts availability
|
Include a clause requiring all
“work and services” furnished under the contract to be guaranteed
for 10 years, but exclude specific warranty requirements for
hardware, software and equipment. Create the appearance of a good
specification without actually doing so. |
|
Use the following language in
response to questions asked by potential bidders when confronted
with questions regarding vague and ambiguous requirements in the RFQ:
“Please take the time and read the entire specifications of this
bid. You can answer all of your questions within the specifications
of the bid.” |
|
Posted on September 20th, 2008
This week the US economy sailed off the edge
of the map into unknown waters as the Federal government took over
AIG and the
stalwart investment banking firm
Lehman Brothers
took bankruptcy and was delisted on the New York stock exchange. A
welfare line is forming outside of the
Fed as
other troubled companies see a potential lifeline offered by the
government.
Selling adjustable rate
mortgages to “no-doc” deadbeats is something that a reasonable and
prudent person might think is economically unsound, but it was a
great way for the huge banks to get rid of the market competition
like
Bear Sterns,
Lehman,
Merrill Lynch
and others by creating poisonous sub-prime loans and feeding them
to the greedy investment bankers to choke on. This was
orchestrated by brilliant players and clearly served its purpose.
Could the same be said for what’s
occurring in the public-safety radio sector?
State and
local governments are clamoring for “free” Federal grant money to
build extraordinarily expensive radio systems without regard to
how they will fund recurring maintenance and replacement expenses.
The complex digital trunked radio technology that is aggressively
being sold will be prematurely obsolete, often before the systems
are put into service. The usable life of the equipment will
typically be half or less than what the previous generation of
equipment served. How will city and county governments fund the
replacement of these systems, most of which should never have been
purchased in the first place? There is no commitment or assurance
from the Federal government to pay recurring expenses, or for
essential upgrades or for replacement.
Local government radio technology
managers seem to have lost sight of economic reality in the
excitement of rolling out these massive new systems. Little
attention is paid to the huge ongoing financial commitment that
will be needed after the grant money is gone. Most jurisdictions
are struggling to meet current obligations and are not prepared
for the future expenses that come with digital trunked radio
technology. And where will the money come from to mitigate
problems when it’s discovered that most of these systems will fall
short of the basic performance expectations of police officers and
firefighters?
A typical
digital trunked radio system designed to serve a county with a
population of 700,000 and 450 square miles could easily cost in
excess of $100,000,000. The useful life of the equipment is 5 to
12 years and maintenance expense will be at least 10% per year, or
$10,000,000. The maintenance expense combined with prefunding the
system replacement will result in a financial obligation of at
least $20,000,000 per year. Highly reliable, conventional analog
radio systems that would meet the county’s business requirements
would cost approximately 85% less and not be plagued with
performance issues, security vulnerabilities, and premature
obsolescence associated with digital trunking.
Promoters of
these systems create the illusion that public safety agencies will
be “left behind” if they don’t implement digital trunked radio
technology. Solutions to communications interoperability are
pitched as something than can be achieved by writing a big check,
which clearly is not the case.
Manufacturers
impose subtle proprietary “features” in their products to limit
compatibility with industry standards so clients are locked in to
buying only their products and prices are kept artificially high
by this anti-competitive behavior. Manufacturers release products
when they are sufficiently debugged only to the point where the
user might tolerate them. This helps set the stage for early
replacement, and the opportunity to sell improved equipment on
short intervals. Vendors and consultants pump-up the most
expensive technology possible, without regard to functionality or
long-term affordability.
It’s
inevitable that the digital trunked radio bubble will burst and
the consequences will be significant. Will the Federal government
bail out the city, county and state governments like it did for
AIG? Only
time will tell. In the meantime, police officers and firefighters
who deserve and truly need effective radio communications systems
will suffer the consequences every time they pick up a microphone.
|
Posted on March 22nd, 2009
The appearance of impropriety
continues as the Bay Area SUASI Program grows. Under the direction of
general manager Laura Phillips, the Bay Area SUASI organization
continues to hire “project managers” who were previously employed by
Motorola selling the same products and technology that SUASI is now
funding for some Bay Area cities and Counties. Phillips is also a
former Motorola employee.
Coincidentally, Phillips also
chairs the Bay Area SUASI Program Funding Approval Authority.
Hundreds of millions of tax
dollars will likely be spent in the Bay Area on Motorola radio
communications equipment without the benefit of competitive bid.
Under the SUASI program leadership, the radio communications systems
are being structured so that only Motorola licensed equipment will be
compatible. This sort of restriction on competition generally results
in unnecessarily high cost, premature obsolescence and marginal
quality.
Would you expect anything less
from a team of Motorola sales professionals?
I first wrote about this
phenomenon in
“The appearance of impropriety (part 1)”
on August 15, 2008. SUASI has hired two more Motorola salesmen since
then, and continues to aggressively recommend proprietary Motorola
products under the guise of communications interoperability.
Motorola is one of several firms
that manufacture digital trunked radios that use the
controversial P25 standard, however Motorola has introduced
proprietary variants into its products that intentionally limit
interoperability with other brands. It is being suggested that the
SUASI-funded Motorola systems in the Bay Area be interconnected using
a proprietary product called Omnilink. This will destroy the ability
of city and county governments to purchase radios on a truly
competitive basis from a large number of manufacturers.
Only mobile and portable radios
that use Motorola’s Omnilink software would be able to fully use the
proposed systems. The very expensive radio base station and controller
equipment would have to be exclusively Motorola products.
Several problems occur for city
and county governments when a single manufacturer controls a large
system.
|
The manufacturer can declare
hardware and software obsolescence at any time, necessitating the
mandatory purchase of expensive software upgrades and replacement
equipment. |
|
Once customers are locked in
to the proprietary product, the manufacturer can set arbitrary
prices for equipment, software and related services. |
|
The manufacturer is motivated
to release products when they are barely debugged, knowing that 1)
the customer has no alternative; and 2) the customer will buy more
equipment and services to fix the problems. |
The Bay Area SUASI has
restricted access to portions of its
website that
include staff bios and its organization chart. A password is now
needed to view this seemingly public information. I suppose that I
would want to conceal this information too, if I had stacked the deck
in favor of Motorola.
====
My perspective is from the
viewpoint of someone who is responsible for managing public safety
technology. I am responsible for specifying and purchasing
telecommunications equipment for local governments and have long-term
relationships with police and fire departments to provide technical
and business advice on public safety technology.
====
Addendum:
|
03/23/2009 Bay Area SUASI
modified its website to allow public access to the staff bios page. |
|
Posted on August 15th, 2008
The August 2008 issue of
Urgent Communications
magazine (formerly Mobile Radio Technology) is filled with articles
and information about the tenuous state of the evolving standard for
police and fire digital radio known as P25. It’s good to see these
topics finally being discussed by the mainstream trade press, even
though just a few of the problems were mentioned in this month’s
edition of
Urgent Communications.
The problems have been widely known by industry insiders for many
years. It seems that many public-safety administrators are finally
starting to ask the right questions and demand reliable
open-architecture systems that are truly interoperable.
Motorola and other manufacturers continue to
aggressively sell closed-architecture systems based on technology that
is known to be deficient, and many government entities are continuing
to buy. Why is this? Are the government executives who make these
multi-million dollar purchases merely not informed, or are they
irresponsible risk takers? Or, is there more to the story that might
suggest impropriety?
Consider, for example, the City and County of
San Francisco. In 2006, the City hired a Motorola sales support
employee to become its Director of Emergency Communications. This
employee then went on to become the general manager of the
Bay Area SUASI
which is responsible for administering many millions of dollars in
Federal homeland security grants, much of which is destined for radio
communications systems. And then in January 2008, the City hires
another Motorola employee to serve as its radio interoperability
manager. What are the chances of San Francisco buying anything other
than a Motorola digital trunked radio system? What role did Motorola
play in facilitating its former employees to be hired into these
positions of high influence over product selection? Is this happening
throughout the country?
And what about the employees of the large
“independent” technology consulting firms used by Bay Area cities and
counties to advise them on radio technology? How many key employees of
these firms are former Motorola sales support employees? Is there a
pattern that might be worthy of further investigation?
The
East Bay Regional Communications System
Authority (EBRCSA) has received many
millions of dollars from
Bay Area SUASI
for interoperable radio communications equipment. According to minutes
posted on its web site, most of the
EBRCSA
equipment (made by Motorola) is stored in warehouses and almost none
of it has been deployed. The equipment is based on the well-known and
deficient technology described throughout this web site, and will
probably be obsolete before it’s installed.
Is this phenomena unique to the San Francisco
Bay Area, or is it happening across the Country?
Click here for a list of documented failures and
problems with digital trunked radio systems.
|
Public officials continue to scramble for
answers on why multi-million dollar digital trunked radio systems are
perceived as failures. Today’s example is a new $37 million Motorola
P25 system operated by the Metropolitan Emergency Communications
Agency (MECA) in Marion County Indiana. Police officers and
firefighters have raised potentially life-threatening safety concerns
over the county’s digital radio system, and the MECA board of
directors has called off two monthly meetings in a row. It appears
that the MECA board has no satisfactory answers for the concerns
raised.
You would think that the
numerous examples of such failures throughout the country would lead
reasonable and prudent decision makers to change direction. Digital
trunked radio technology is clearly problematic in numerous ways, but
Motorola and other vendors continue to aggressively sell the
technology and unwitting government bureaucrats commit hundreds of
millions of dollars to buy it. It will be interesting to see how
Motorola, other system vendors and government agencies prevail when
lawsuits stemming from lives that are lost because of radio
communications problems become commonplace. The burden of settling the
lawsuits may make the cost of the deficient equipment seem
insignificant. Can Homeland Security grant money be used to pay
judgments or settle lawsuits?
Links to additional information related to
this article:
Links to published articles about MECA
digital radio problems in PDF format:
Links to more information about digital radio
issues in general:
|
|
|
Several large fire departments in the U.S. have determined that digital
radio systems are not suitable for use on the fireground. One of the
most significant problems they have identified occurs when using digital
radios in noisy environments. The computer software in the radio that
converts the spoken word to digital data cannot adequately distinguish
between human voice and noise. The voice is masked by the noise much
worse than analog radios.
In response to this issue, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) created a
Digital Problem Working Group (DPWG) to provide expert input to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology which conducted tests
in concert with
NTIA to confirm the problem and identify potential solutions. The
results of the study substantiated what the fire departments reported.
The NIST/NTIA tests were specific to the noises that could be
expected at the scene of a fire or rescue incident, and focused on
sounds from the following sources:
|
Fire truck pump panel |
|
Firefighter Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices |
|
In-mask low-air alarm |
|
K12 circular saw |
|
Chain saw |
I believe this problem extends beyond the narrow scope of the noise
sources that were tested by NIST/NTIA. Why would this problem be limited
to radios used by firefighters and noises commonly heard at fire
incidents? Similar problems could occur for police officers using
digital radios in the following situations.
|
Low to moderate wind noise when a police officer is transmitting
from a portable radio outdoors |
|
Storm noise including wind and rain when a police officer is
transmitting from a portable radio outdoors |
|
Traffic noise when transmitting from a portable radio while
standing outdoors next to a busy freeway |
|
Transmitting from a mobile radio in a patrol car while a canine is
barking loudly in the back seat |
|
When transmitting from a handheld radio in the presence of a loud
crowd of people or when loud music is present, such as rock concert |
|
When transmitting from a mobile radio during a pursuit while siren
noise is present |
If you are a police officer or dispatcher and have personally
experienced problems with digital radios in noisy environments,
please click here to tell me your story.
Links to IAFC, NIST and NTIA documents related to the tests.
Related information:
|
Over the past five years, I’ve had the opportunity to study
many digital trunked radio systems used for public-safety
communication. Though I am sure there are some success
stories, my interest has focused on the systems that have
problems or do not meet the expectations of their users. A
very high percentage of the Nation’s digital trunked radio
systems are in this category.
There is a clear pattern of
problems with digital trunked radio systems that are endemic
to the nature of the technology.
|
Vocoder characteristics (Poor background
noise rejection) |
|
Frequent dropouts and garbled audio caused
by multipath interference |
|
Software defects |
|
Long keyup delay and high latency |
|
Unacceptably low battery life for handheld
radios |
|
Poor system administration practices |
An equally high percentage of problems are attributable to
poor judgment in the initial system design and configuration.
Radio systems may be optimized at design time for high
capacity, wide area service, or good in-building coverage, but
they are almost never optimized for all three because of the
extraordinarily high cost. There is a trend to assume that
optimization must favor high capacity and wide area service
even when there is no compelling business case to do so. Many
contemporary digital public-safety radio systems are deemed
inadequate by police and fire users because first-responders
in metropolitan and suburban areas expect (and truly need)
excellent in-building coverage, even though their digital
trunked systems were not designed to provide it.
Specifications for good in-building coverage are almost always
compromised in favor of high capacity and wide area service
because of economics. This has resulted in numerous
communities not providing their police officers and
firefighters with adequate communications equipment which is
essential to employee safety and welfare.
The perceived need for wide-area radio interoperability
fosters the justification to compromise in-building coverage.
There is rarely sufficient money to do both. In reality,
police officers and firefighters in metropolitan and suburban
areas rarely need to communicate by radio over long distances,
and rarely need to roam very far out of their jurisdiction.
Reliable communication at the scene of critical incidents is
essential, and rarely extends beyond a few square block area.
Life safety of first responders is frequently dependent on
effective radio communication on the fireground and in police
tactical situations. Why has the emphasis in radio system
design shifted away from constructing systems that provide
this level of service?
In most of the cases I’ve studied, the police and fire
executives who were involved in the system procurement
honestly thought they would be getting a radio system that
provided excellent in-building coverage and are surprised when
it is not the case. Some refuse to believe there is a problem
and rely on the excuse that the system is performing in accord
with its design specifications.
Signal quality for digital radio systems is often
represented as a number between 1 and 5, and referred to as
Digital Audio Quality, or simply as
DAQ.
|
DAQ 1 Unusable. Speech present but not
understandable. |
|
DAQ 2 Speech understandable with
considerable effort. Requires frequent repetition due to
noise/distortion. |
|
DAQ 3 Speech understandable with slight
effort. Requires occasional repetition due to
noise/distortion. |
|
DAQ 3.4 Speech understandable without
repetition. Some noise/distortion present. |
|
DAQ 4 Speech easily understood. Occasional
noise/distortion present. |
|
DAQ 5 Speech easily understood. No
noise/distortion present. |
The most common coverage specification I’ve seen for
digital trunked radio systems requires a minimum DAQ of 3.4.
98% of the time, over 95% of the defined coverage area. This
is a very weak specification that will fall short of the
expectations of almost all first responders. This could be
interpreted to mean that it is acceptable for 2 minutes out of
every 100 minutes of radio traffic to be unintelligible. Or it
could mean that is is acceptable to have an unintelligible
signal in 5 square city blocks out of every 100 square city
blocks. Such a coverage specification is woefully inadequate.
For comparison, the generally accepted specification for
the municipal law enforcement radio systems in San Mateo
County, California is for a 100% full-quieting analog signal
to and from a mobile radio 100% of the time when the vehicle
is parked or in motion on a city street within its
jurisdiction. Nothing less is acceptable. The expectation for
portable radio coverage inside residential buildings and when
above grade is for easily understood communication in both
directions at least 99% of the time. I believe this is typical
of what most metropolitan and suburban police officers and
firefighters expect and need.
Why is it that digital trunked radio systems are rarely
held to the same, or higher standard of performance? Perhaps
because the systems would be too expensive to afford and too
complex to reliably maintain. Coverage specifications must be
low in order to keep the cost low enough to initially sell the
system. Of course, consultants and manufacturers will always
be available to sell additional infrastructure to improve
coverage.
|
Posted on December 18th, 2007
Ada County Idaho was one of the first jurisdictions in the United States
to embark on a cutting edge 700 MHz digital trunked radio system. The
City of Boise is in Ada County and agreed to participate in the
countywide radio system. The Boise Fire Department purchased more than
one million dollars of 700 MHz digital mobile and portable radio
equipment with the expectation that the new equipment would provide the
best possible communication for its first responders. Unfortunately, the
Fire Department staff has determined that the digital radios would
present a risk to firefighter safety if placed into service. The radios
have not been deployed because of this issue.
Specifically, Boise firefighters have determined that voice
transmissions over the digital radio system are usually unintelligible
when a VibraAlert feature on a Scott SCBA is alarming, or when multiple
PASS alarms are sounding in the same area. The software used in the
digital radios that converts voice to digital data cannot isolate the
spoken voice from the noise. Voice transmissions are unintelligible when
the radios are used in a high-noise environment.
Boise Fire staff conducted extensive tests and determined that the
problem is endemic to the digital modulation used in the new radios. The
problem is not directly related to the 700 MHz frequency band or to
trunking, however the FCC requires that digital modulation be used in
700 MHz radio systems. The only reasonable conclusion is that 700 MHz
digital radio equipment is not suitable for use on the fireground.
In
2006, some fire departments discovered that the voice audio from
digital radios in the presence of background noise (common to
firefighting operations) will cause distortion to the degree of
unintelligibility. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
have established a working group to study this issue. The IAFC issued an
alert to its membership on March 20, 2007. There is no known workaround
or solution to this problem as of this writing.
Boise Fire Department and the other fire departments in Ada County will
remain on analog VHF radio systems.
The City of Boise Idaho has a population of about 201,000 residents,
however the metropolitan area has about 635,000 persons. The City covers
approximately 64 square miles.
Please contact me if you would like contact information at the Boise
Fire Department to hear this information first hand.
|
Digital Radio Noise Problem: Best
Practices Solicited
http://www.iafc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=33964
Fairfax, Va., June 21, 2007... The
IAFC Digital Problem Working Group is actively working to identify the
causes and potential solutions for the digital distortion some users of
digital radio systems have experienced in high-noise environments. The
working group currently has two task groups working on different aspects
of the digital problem:
|
The Testing Task Group is working with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology to identify scenarios to be tested
in an effort to objectively quantify the nature and scope of the problem
and potential solutions. |
|
The Best Practices Task Group is working to identify
procedural and technical solutions departments may have successfully
implemented to address the problem. |
The Best Practices Task Group is soliciting input from users of radio
systems that use digital modulation. The task group is interested in the
steps user agencies have taken to address audio distortion problems they
have experienced in high-noise environments. These practices may be:
|
procedural
|
|
technical adjustments to radio equipment
|
|
the use of specific radio accessories that have been
found to work well minimizing or mitigating digital audio distortion |
To submit a best practice online, go to
www.iafc.org/DigitalProblem and click on
the “Submit a best practice” button.
Where appropriate, the Best Practices Task Group will
forward the practices collected to the Testing Task Group for validation
and optimization.
For more information on the digital noise issue, visit the
IAFC website at
www.iafc.org/DigitalProblem.
-end-
|
Common Fireground Noise May Cause
Unintelligibility of Digital Radio Transmissions
http://www.iafc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=33118
Fairfax, Va., Mar. 20, 2007...
The International Association of Fire Chiefs is alerting its members to a
potential issue and soliciting their input to a solution. The IAFC has
received reports of firefighters experiencing unintelligible audio
communications while using a digital two-way portable radio when operating
in close proximity to the low-pressure alarm of their self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA). In addition, other common fireground noise,
including powered tools, apparatus and PASS devices, may affect voice
intelligibility.
This is an industry-wide issue and is not specific to any
one manufacturer’s radios. There are indications that any digital voice
communication product utilizing parametric voice encoders could be
affected by this problem. The IAFC does know the problem is not related to
any specific radio spectrum, as it is not a frequency of operation issue,
or a particular communication standard.
Due to these reports, the IAFC board of directors has
asked the Communications Committee to form a working group to work with
other IAFC committees and sections and other appropriate organizations to
investigate and provide recommendations to address this concern. The
specific focus of the group will be to:
|
Fully understand the facts and identify potential
solutions that may be required. |
|
Facilitate industry collaboration among the
communications equipment manufacturers to explore options to mitigate or
eliminate this concern. |
|
Recommend best practices for digital portable radio use
on the fireground. |
The IAFC is asking you to contact the Communications Working Group if you
have experienced similar issues. Go to
www.iafc.org/digitalproblem to learn more
about the tests you can conduct to provide the working group the
information it needs to study the issue and make recommendations.
Your input is vital to ensure that digital radio
technology can be effectively utilized in fireground applications. The
IAFC fully understands that many fire departments are using digital radio
systems with success, but there may be issues related to voice
transmission being interfered with or overridden when common fireground
noise is in the background.
We appreciate your assistance in testing your systems and
reporting back to us.
-end-
|
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Digital Problem
The IAFC is alerting its members to a potential issue and
soliciting their input to a solution. We have received reports of
firefighters experiencing unintelligible audio communications while using
a digital two-way portable radio when operating in close proximity to the
low-pressure alarm of their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
Other common fireground noise, including powered tools, apparatus and PASS
devices, may affect voice intelligibility.
This is an industry-wide issue and is not specific to any
one manufacturer’s radios. There are indications that any digital voice
communication product utilizing parametric voice encoders could be
affected by this problem. The IAFC does know the problem is not related to
any specific radio spectrum, as it is not a frequency of operation issue,
or a particular communication standard.
Due to these reports, the IAFC board of directors has
asked the Communications Committee to form a working group to work with
other IAFC committees and sections and other appropriate organizations to
investigate and provide recommendations to address this concern.
If you have experienced similar issues, the
Communications Working Group needs to hear from you.
http://www.iafc.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=719
|
|
Interoperability: Stop Blaming the Radio
by Ronald P. Timmons
An EXCELLENT white paper on the dual problems of communications systems
that fail during emergencies
and
the personal dynamics of the failure of first responders to communicate
properly during stressful situations.
17 page .pdf:
timmonsoninteroperability-2007.pdf
A much longer (107 page) thesis from Mr. Timmons on why communications
fail.
ABSTRACT
Concerns about inadequate radio communications at the
scene of disasters predate 9/11, and have been a focal point of homeland
security funding since 2001. Under the umbrella term “interoperability,”
grant funding is facilitating the recent deployment of equipment to allow
field personnel to patch radio systems together, with the expectation of
immediate improvement of emergency scene communications dysfunction.
This thesis argues that there are numerous causal factors
for inadequate disaster communications. Communications impediments include
insufficient radio infrastructure, behavioral reactions by people in
stressful situations, intergovernmental relations, inadequate procedures
and training, and general lethargy over the need to institute special
operating policies differing from routine practices.
The sole reliance upon technological solutions,
without proportionate training and practice greatly reduces the
effectiveness of radio patching equipment. Quite opposite from the
intended effect, patching equipment, in the hands of those only minimally
acclimated to radio system architecture, is likely to trigger unintended
consequences of chaotic system overload (by combining two or more busy
channels) and sector vulnerability (by combining unsecured general public
systems with previously isolated public safety systems).
Our goal is to provide a thought-provoking examination of
the entire realm of emergency scene communications issues and practical
recommendations beyond superficial technological solutions.
107 page .pdf:
rtimmons_thesis_2006.pdf
|
NFPA 1561
"Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System",
or
How radios SHOULD work in the Fire Services.
Contact the N.F.P.A. for the most recent version of this standard.
|
A "Must Read" Article
SPECIAL REPORT - United States Fire Administration - Technical Report
Series
Improving Firefighter Communications
|
Another "Must Read" Article
NIOSH Firefighter Radio Communications -
CHAPTER III: FIREFIGHTER COMMUNICATION ISSUES
|
|
|
|
|
