|
^
Site
Links
| |
|
|
|
For more information on
Consulting and Grants, contact Jim Eatock at 217-833-2488, or email jim@b-kelectric.com.
|
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:
| Interoperable
planning seem to be 10% equipment and 90% politics. |
| 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. |
| What's a TIC-P? |
|
Our Government 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.
|
| Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans (TICP) for your
region or county.
|
| Narrowband migration planning
|
|
Site and existing operational surveys and
studies.
|
|
Five-Year and Ten-Year Master Communication
Plans to comply with NFPA 1561 and 1221.
|
|
Complete (!) written radio study for your
city / county / region- real "boots on the ground" research, not just
changing the names from the last one we wrote.
|
|
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 is the
opinion and view 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. |
| Public Safety
Communications. The following is
based both on the collective experience of first responders, a little
technical knowledge, and the collective wisdom of NFPA 1221 and
1561.
For any public safety incident,
communications needs can be broken down into three areas. They are, in
order of use:
- Initial notification.
- Response command, control and coordination.
- Tactical Operations.
Each of these three communication PATHS should be considered very
different, and each has its own unique needs and operational rules.
In a bit more detail, the first one, Initial Notification,
is perhaps the simplest yet most misunderstood and misapplied. The
purpose of Initial notification is just that, the first notification to
responders of the who, what and where that gets the troops out of bed
and rolling in the right direction. For most agencies, we're talking
plain old pagers, or radios with page alert features enabled. For the
technically inclined, cell phone SMS, or a wide variety of other means
all work. The hard and fast rule is that everyone gets the
notification in a reliable and timely manner.
In the old days, we rang the bell (or whistle or siren) at the
fire house and everyone (who lived in running distance anyway) came
running. In today's world of specialized and wide-ranging
operations, that old simple system (albeit effective for a small area)
doesn't give us enough information. To make matters worse, proprietary
radio channels are pretty hard to find, and when you step back and look
at the big picture, really don't make much sense. You need more
information! Yes, I want to know when my own agency if called out,
but really don't want everyone in town to come for a look-see.
What does make sense, is for one combined joint regional
initial notification channel with good base talk-out coverage to be used
by everyone in my region, so I can get the big picture. If I don't care
about anything but my own agency, give me a pager that will only open up
when our name is called; that way I can blissfully ignore
everyone else without affecting the whole system. Having a wide
area coverage also means that my radio will alert in a wide geographical
area, not just within the small footprint of my own small proprietary
transmitter. I can still set my pager to its narrow setting and keep my
narrow view, but I also have the opportunity to know that a neighboring
agency has been called out, and that I may need to stroll to the
house and provide mutual aid. Or as happens far too often, the
neighbors don't have anyone available to respond, in which case I may be
going as the primary responder.
But, here's where things get muddy.
The downside to everyone in a region using one initial
notification channel is it that becomes congested. Its always paging.
And it is always busy so I can't talk back on it. But guess what? Once I
am on the way, I don't NEED the Initial Notification channel any more.
I've already BEEN notified and can forget about it. And I don't
ever need to talk on it, because I can use my response command, control
and coordination channel. (NFPA say 750 calls a year warrants an
exclusive paging channel for this reason.)
OK, you got notified and have your boots on. Now what?
You change channels. and either say that you're on the way, or listen to
the C&C channel to make sure someone is. I once had a rural fire chief
tell me that his guys were smart enough to pump a truck or perform Haz-Mat
operations along an interstate highway, but were too dumb to switch
channels on their radio. Honest. Guys, learn to change
channels.
The response command, control and coordination (a new concept, aka
the C&C channel) is used for communication between ALL assets assigned
to an incident not actively performing life and safety
operations. This is the channel where you tell dispatch you're on the
way. This is where you find out who else is (or isn't) responding. This
is where you talk truck to truck between your own units or with
responders from two districts over. This is where you announce "THE
PLAN", and make sure everyone knows what to do. This is the channel
where everyone who needs to know what is going on can find out.
Technically, a good C&C channel is repeated, or trunked, and has
coverage over your entire region. Here is where the latest technology is
best applied. Everyone who talks, be it from the dispatch console, a
truck or a responder's portable, can be heard by everyone else.
Communication flows seamlessly along this path. The downside is that you
need more than one C&C communications path if you have more than one
incident at a time, and it requires an investment in infrastructure.
NFPA has this down in detail, but the above simply sums it up.
Now we get to the last communications path, Tactical Operations.
And here is where many agencies screw up.
Assets arrive at the Incident Scene and Command is established.
The C&C channel is not only worthless for tactical operations, but can
be a dangerous, even fatal choice. If I have a serious life and safety
issue, I can't wait for someone miles away to shut up. If I'm miles
away, I can't hear a portable in the basement calling mayday and will
cheerfully walk all over them. If I am dependent on a distant repeater,
or even worse a trunking controller to give me a 'clear to talk' chirp,
I may be in trouble. Firefighters have died for these reasons.
Tactical operations involve life and safety, are usually within
close proximity, and require only the simplest of technology. That's
ALL they need to be and no more. Nosey neighbors twenty miles away
don't NEED to hear your operational traffic anyway. That's why we move
operations to a dedicated tactical channel that is:
- Useable by everyone involved in operations within the short
range and scope of the Incident Scene.
- Is plain vanilla, dumb, stupid old simplex, that doesn't add
ANY points of failure between the transmitter in my hand and the
receiver at your ear.
- Doesn't have anyone talking on it that the Incident Commander
can't hit with a rock.
I hear all too often that the Incident Commander can't listen to
two channels. If you're smart enough to wear the white hat, you get to
carry two radios. One for the C&C channel to talk to people you can't
see, and one to talk to the tactical folks you can see. (Two radios -
one on C&C and one on tactical - is preferred over a single scanning
radio.) If the IC is too deeply involved in Operations to monitor the
C&C channel, have someone else monitor it and tap the Commander on the
shoulder when need be.
And again, if you're not on-scene, stay off the tactical channel
for fear of talking over someone calling mayday, or an evacuation order.
This also applies to 'foreign' users on that channel. If you have
someone distant on a high powered base station covering up your own
local tactical communications, you have picked the wrong channel.
In Illinois, MABAS has six dedicated fireground channels. Everyone
in the state should have them and use them on every incident requiring
tactical communications. They're all low power, so the chances of your
traffic on FG-RED being covered by another incident on FG-RED over in
the next county are slim. And even better, if you simple incident
turns into a big 'yall come, any foreigners coming to play already have
your tactical channel in their radio.
And please, please, please have a couple of training sessions
every year just on radio communications, and make sure all your radios
really work.
|
| |
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 |
|
|
|
|
