TETRA Experience 2006

1
TETRA Experience 2006

• Sao Paulo
• July 19th 2006

2
Welcome and Introduction

• Peter Clemons

3
TETRA Experience 2006

• Sao Paulo
• July 19th 2006

4
Public Safety Shared Networks

• Phil Kidner

5
How am I qualified to talk about this ?

• 30 years as a Police user
• Involved with Airwave in the UK from user
  requirements through procurement, implementation,
  operation and service management

6
What am I going to talk about ?

• From the beginning
• Some of the pros and cons of a shared network
• Some of the consequences
• Some of the choices
• Some other European experiences
• Summary

7
From the beginning

• Each blue light service on a separate network
• Other related organisations on different networks
• All our neighbours on different networks
• Users from the same service, in the same area, on
  different networks
• Every time there was a major incident
  communications severely criticised

8
From the beginning

• Political decision to have a shared network
• Political decision to have shared control rooms
• Joint procurement for all blue light services
• Reality something different !!

9
But we got there eventually !!

• 200 different organisations
• 200,000 registered users
• More to come
• Still very few joint control rooms in the UK

10
Some of the benefits of sharing

• Operational benefits
• Common and enhanced functionality, coverage and
  security
• Interoperability between users and organisations
• Possibilities for closer co-operation and new
  procedures
• Multi-disciplinary fleet map
• Common procedures
• Joint control rooms
• Cross border operation

11
Some more benefits

• Economics
• One network built and managed by a dedicated
  organisation - government or commercial
  (Policemen should be out on the street catching
  criminals)
• Larger volumes ? Lower prices
• High network capacity to the users realising
  the trunking efficiency

12
And yet more benefits

• Environment
• Lower number of base stations sites

13
Are there any disadvantages ?

• Tied to the operator government or commercial ?
• No direct influence on
• Functionality ?
• Coverage ?
• Reliability ?

14
Any others ?

• Security
• Other users on the network ?
• Operator ?
• Capacity
• Guarantees during major incidents ?

15
Some of the consequences

• A big investment
• High profile political environment
• Media attention
• External audits
• Many parties with different history/requirements
  involved
• High complexity

16
Some more of the consequences

• Additional requirements
• Should be future proofing ?
• Should enable international cooperation?
• Common control rooms?
• Leading to
• A Rolls Royce ?
• cost explosion ?
• extra delay ?

17
Some of the choices to be made Potential Sharers

• National Decision
• Emergency Services yes ?
• Government organisations some ?
• Military security issues ?
• Utilities interoperability ?
• Transport possibly ?
• Others not taxis ?

18
Some more of the choices to made Operator models

• Government Operator ?
• Dedicated organisation
• Pro flexibility for adding coverage, capacity,
  new functionality
• network publicly owned
• Con large capital outlay ? technical challenge ?
  Resources ?

19
Some more of the choices to made Operator
models

• Commercial Operator ?
• Long term detailed contract with professional
  commercial organisation
• Pro concentrate on core business
• share the risks ?
• Conlong term commitment? less direct influence
  on coverage, capacity, functionality ? future ?
  large revenue costs ?

20
Some more of the choices to madeFee/Cost
Structure

• What to charge the different organisations ?
• number of radios ?
• usage of the network ?
• static/roaming ?
• per call ?
• per month ?
• central budgets

21
Some more of the choices to madePerformance

• Penalties ?
• Performance ?
• SLAs and ongoing service regime

22
Some other European experiencesThe Netherlands

• Main organisations Police, Fire Brigade,
  Ambulance, Military police
• 25 multi-disciplinary control rooms
• gt20 other Public Safety related organisations
  have limited access under responsibility of one
  of the main organisations
• Government operator, central budget
• Highlights
• During the project Ambulance and Firebrigade have
  strongly improved their organisation structure
• Successful large scale multi-disciplinary
  disaster training in April 2006

23
Some other European experiences Belgium

• Network was built for more than 15 organisations,
  including
• Ambulance
• Fire brigade
• Customs
• Semi-government operator, monthly fee
• Highlights
• In the procurement 20 parties from 7 Ministries
  were involved
• It has been hard to level the requirements of all
  the parties

24
Some other European experiencesFinland

• Network built for wide user community, currently
  more than 20 different organisations, including
• Police
• Fire and Rescue service
• Frontier Guard
• Military
• Social and Health service
• Municipalities
• Government operator, monthly fee
• Highlights
• Operational since 2002
• Common control rooms

25
The Brazilian experience?

• Who will be the users of a Public Safety TETRA
  network in Brazil ?

26
Summary Conclusions

• building a national shared Public Safety network
• has many advantages to the users and the
  government
• the possible disadvantages can be handled
• it is complex (mainly organisational)
• there are successful examples elsewhere
• A successful shared network depends upon keeping
  all parties involved at all times !

27
Thank You!!

• Questions??

28
TETRA Experience 2006

• Sao Paulo
• July 19th 2006

29
Interoperability vsInterworking
Iain Ivory

• The Importance of Standards for Interoperability
  During Major Incidents, Emergencies and Disasters

30
Agenda

• Interoperability Definitions Need
• What is Interoperability and what is Interworking
• Interoperability Enablers
• Levels of Interoperability
• Recommendations Summary

31
Interoperability is More Critical than Ever, but
What is it?

• Many definitions of Interoperability
• Technology solutions were easier in the analogue
  world
• Procedural solutions have an impact
• Vision of solutions vary by Service
• We need to use common language to
• Clarify discussions
• Help specify requirements
• Separate operating conditions
• Optimal Interoperability means using the same
  technology
• Interworking is Interoperability. Right?

32
Critical Interoperability Enablers

• Willingness

33
What is Interoperability to You?

• Cross Border the ability to roam to neighboring
  network
• Cross Service the ability to cooperate during
  incidents
• Ability to use terminals from multiple and
  competing vendors

What is Interworking is that all you want?

• Control Room patching
• Cross-connect technologies
• Gateway Interfaces

34
Interoperability is About Safety!!
35
Disasters have regrettably often been Major
Motivators for Interoperability Planning

• Norway
• Train accident in Asta, January 2000 followed
  several marine accidents
• Sweden
• Disco Fire EU Summit in Gothenburg
• United Kingdom
• Hillsborough, Clapham, Kings Cross
• September 11th attacks were experienced
  worldwide
• Interoperability is getting more attention than
  ever
• It is becomming inconceivable to plan for
  non-interoperability
• France
• Decission being formalised to force Fire and
  Health to AcroPol network.
• Arguments used are cost saving and need for
  Interoperability.

36
Importance of Interoperability

• Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001
• Arlington County
• City of Alexandria
• Fairfax County, VA
• DC Fire EMA
• Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority
• Result Seamless immediate inter- agency
  communications with equipment from multiple
  suppliers

The on scene communications were flawless.
System Manager, Fairfax County, VA
37
Key Needs for Public Safety Radio Schemes USA
reviews post 11Sept

• Dedicated network
• Private calls
• Multi-disciplined
• Strong resilience
• Effective TMO fallback
• In-building coverage essential
• Talk round (DMO the ultimate resilience)

38
International Association of Chiefs of
PoliceIACP

• After each major event in recent history, the
  most glaring indication of success or failure by
  responding agencies has been their ability to
  effectively communicate with each other.

39
Levels of Interoperability
40
Interoperability Techniques
41
Level 4 Gateway -- Interface Box

• Hardware component that sits between two networks
• RF or 4-wire audio links connect systems
• Provides audio only, no system specific features

TETRA System
Non-Tetra System
Gateway
42
Level 4 Gateway -- Interface Box Requires
Overlapping Coverage
Gateway
43
Level 4 Gateway (Console Patch)

• Works Via Radios talk via link established by
  dispatcher, unmanned interface box, or mobile
  apparatus
• Advantage
• Moderate cost to implement in addition to network
  cost
• Links different system types or frequency ranges
• Disadvantage
• Connected systems must have complementary/overlapp
  ing coverage
• Console patch is unavailable if control center is
  not operating
• Advanced calling features unavailable to users
  dispatch audio only
• Reduced channel capacity what were two
  independent channel resources are now one
  talkpath
• System management ends at gateway boundary
• Not for ad hoc use pre-planning required on
  each system for channel crowding procedures and
  setup

44
Interoperability Techniques
45
Level 5 System Specific Roaming
380 MHz Site
380 MHz Site
380 MHz Site
380 MHz Site
Zone Controller
46
Level 5 System Specific Roaming

• Works Via Radios talk to each other via
  infrastructure or DMO using infrastructure
• Advantage
• Covers large areas seamlessly
• Users can contact agencies across entire coverage
  area
• Can handle larger numbers of users
• No console intervention required
• All advanced features are available to users
• Disadvantage
• Additional planning and provisioning required on
  each system
• Requirement for double RF coverage, more towers
  and more spectrum
• Requirement
• All players adopt TETRA and enjoy competition
  within the open standards sphere.

47
Interoperability Techniques
48
Level 6 TETRA-Based Shared System
A
380 MHz TETRA Site
380 MHz TETRA Site
380 MHz TETRA Site
Zone Controller
49
Level 6 Standards-Based Shared Systems

• Works Via All radios built to a standard (TETRA)
  talk to each other via infrastructure or in DMO
• Advantage
• Interoperability at the turn of a dial
• Links different vendor systems
• Out of the box interoperability, simple to set
  up infrastructure
• No console intervention required
• All advanced features are available to users
• Disadvantage
• Requires equipment to be built to same standard,
  usually happens via new/upgraded system purchase
• Not all vendors build to standard.
  Interoperability holes are still possible

50
Interoperability Basics -- Keep it Simple

• Massive Incidents Massive Stress
• Allow your Public Safety Responders to Respond
• Plan with your Neighbors Neighbors
• Massive incidents will require massive response
• Direct Interoperable Everyday Systems
• From Pentagon after 9/11 Use your
  Interoperability tools regularly

51
Recommendations Summary

• Plan for the highest level of Interoperability
• Accept nothing less consider your stakeholders
• Public systems are great for communication
  from/to the public.
• TETRA is a high capacity solution and the tool
  for the Emergency Services Radio Communication

52
Thank You!
53
Interoperability is About Safety!!