Another Failure

[cvrules90]

In my mind there have always been three types of law enforcement radio interoperability. Each has unique and specific applicability (and potential drawbacks), making training and practice extremely important. I think all three are necessary.

It's more like 5 to 7 types of interoperability, depending on how you interpret the various documents and whitepapers out on the subject.

The 7 levels of interoperability are:
Agencies swapping radios
Simplex on whatever common frequency band may exist.
Dedicated mutual aid channels and systems (Riverside County has this)
RF gateways and patching
Network gateways, interconnecting multiple systems to create one larger regional system
Shared systems, like what Orange and San Bernardino Counties have done.
Standards based, like P25.

You could reduce it to:
Swapping radios
Direct air interface on common channels (CLEMARS, ITAC, etc.)
Gateways (patching)
Shared system (i.e. Orange and San Bernardino Counties)
Standards based, like P25

All have advantages and disadvantages. Cost goes up as you go down the list. Effectiveness varies across the board, depending on the specific circumstances of any given event. No "one size fits all" solution will ever work satisfactorily.

The most serious drawback to the list above is that none of the many technical solutions above address politics, policy, operational procedure, training, etc. etc. etc. At least 3 of the 5 interoperability levels existed between most agencies during the Dorner incident and, to my knowledge, none of them were effectively used. This is because the politics, policy, and training are lagging years behind the technology.

I never knew agencies could swap radios.

[sp1989]

Once upon a time, Riverside jail had a pair of jail HTs, a set of keys to all fire escape doors and a fire phone for the elevators. There was a designated person who, in the event of a fire in the jail, would grab all that stuff, and respond to a pre-designated street intersection outside the jail to await the arrival of Riverside City FD and give the items to the Incident Commander. RFD knew all of this and was expecting the equipment to be there on arrival. Somehow, that concept has been lost in the mists of time, that was a quarter century ago. Now, it's a clusterfuck.

[Jlanfn]

It's more like 5 to 7 types of interoperability, depending on how you interpret the various documents and whitepapers out on the subject.

I agree; there are many more technical ways to provide interoperability. I was thinking more about the operational/procedural side of the issue. For example, all three of the types of interoperability I listed could be provided under one technical type you listed: a shared P25 trunked system.

The most serious drawback to the list above is that none of the many technical solutions above address politics, policy, operational procedure, training, etc. etc. etc. At least 3 of the 5 interoperability levels existed between most agencies during the Dorner incident and, to my knowledge, none of them were effectively used. This is because the politics, policy, and training are lagging years behind the technology.

Absolutely agree with you there. I have long understood that training, standard procedures, and especially politics have often been more of a roadblock to interoperability than technology, especially for law enforcement agencies. After all, we know that technology is only one of five elements on the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, the others being governance, standard operating procedures, training and exercises, and usage.

The groups responsible for planning, governance, and technology can be completely separate from one another, and none of them are the typical radio users. Unifying all these people, if even possible, seems like it would take greater motivation than a reaction to the Dorner incident.

[cvrules90]

Having a unified trunked radio network is a must for interoperability. There are even whole states who have built out, or will build out, statewide networks. Now that PSEC is up and running and is better than the EDACS system, I think they ought to considering having more police and fire services on it. THat's really the best way interoperability can be provided. OC has done it even including Santa Ana (the county seat). San Diego County, while it doesn't include San Diego City, built out the RCS for interoperability and everyday comms. Now what they should do is interconnect the San Diego TRS with the RCS somehow.

[zz0468]

Having a unified trunked radio network is a must for interoperability.

Not true. The specific technology used is far less important than the logistics and planning.

There are even whole states who have built out, or will build out, statewide networks.

And many of those state wide projects have been unmitigated disasters, hugely expensive, and the overall benefit toward interoperability has not been cost effective.

Now that PSEC is up and running and is better than the EDACS system, I think they ought to considering having more police and fire services on it. THat's really the best way interoperability can be provided.

At a county level, yes, it can make sense. There are some very successful county wide systems that are carrying most, if not all, law and fire traffic. But those systems went through very painful processes to get there, and maintaining the political support isn't always easy. You're asking numerous independent agencies to give up some of their independence, and that's not an easy sell. These systems are also hugely expensive.

OC has done it even including Santa Ana (the county seat). San Diego County, while it doesn't include San Diego City, built out the RCS for interoperability and everyday comms. Now what they should do is interconnect the San Diego TRS with the RCS somehow.

Isn't RCS nearing the end of it's planned 15 year life? I'm sure the JPA will endure, but just connecting the two systems together is a lot more complicated when you start drilling down into the details.

[cvrules90]

I think San Diego's problem is the fact that they're too close to the Mexican border. There would have to be a trade to alliviate the interference. And I never heard of a JPA system down there. Must be something new that just got online.

[Mike_G_D]

Mike, thanks for the explanation of patches. You can see I'm no radio geek.

I'm a little late here on this but, anyway, thank zz0468 not me for that patch explanation! I answered the wrong question originally - I was thinking of situations wherein a group of users is leaving a system coverage area and entering an area with either no system available at all or an area with an incompatible system; in that case, simplex direct unit-to-unit is the only option (outside of cell phones, of course) for the out-of-area units and patches within their home system (which is out of range) are useless. But if there is some locally available conventional and/or trunked system with patching to standard simplex or repeated conventional ITAC (or some type of conventional mutual aid frequency or group of frequencies) then, yes, patches would be not only practical but pretty much mandatory (assuming everyone involved had the right training and experience to use them, of course).

-Mike

[CQPSK]

Having a unified trunked radio network is a must for interoperability. There are even whole states who have built out, or will build out, statewide networks. Now that PSEC is up and running and is better than the EDACS system, I think they ought to considering having more police and fire services on it. THat's really the best way interoperability can be provided. OC has done it even including Santa Ana (the county seat). San Diego County, while it doesn't include San Diego City, built out the RCS for interoperability and everyday comms. Now what they should do is interconnect the San Diego TRS with the RCS somehow.

Fire does interoperability very well all the time on NATIONWIDE level without a unified trunked system. It's called using the SAME BAND and MODE. In San Diego, if it's not already set up, the City radios could have the County system programmed into a zone of their radios and vice versa and still have complete interoperability without tying the two systems together due to the fact both systems are 800 Mhz Motorola systems.

While coverage is dramatically improved,I think PSEC will have real trouble supporting any more agencies without adding channels, I heard from a deputy that private call is even disabled due to capacity concerns.

[zz0468]

Fire does interoperability very well all the time on NATIONWIDE level without a unified trunked system. It's called using the SAME BAND and MODE.

Even when fire agencies are primarily operating on 700/800 MHz trunked systems, as is done in San Bernardino County, the equipment is also equipped with VHF, for the purposes of statawide mutual aid and interoperability. They've been very smart about how their communications are handled. Law enforcement, with it's command and control mentality, inherently does poorly when it comes to sharing resources.

In San Diego, if it's not already set up, the City radios could have the County system programmed into a zone of their radios and vice versa and still have complete interoperability without tying the two systems together due to the fact both systems are 800 Mhz Motorola systems.

This requires some of the same logistics and coordination that linking systems would require, without as many technical headaches. But it requires close coordination for radio and talk group ID's. A good example of how well that can work would be the old WECA system and San Bernardino County, and why not throw San Bernardino city in there as well. Three separate systems where some effort was expended to allow for units of one system to operate on the other systems.

While coverage is dramatically improved,I think PSEC will have real trouble supporting any more agencies without adding channels, I heard from a deputy that private call is even disabled due to capacity concerns.

It's a sad commentary that this would be an issue so early in the life of a brand new, state of the art system. Channel capacity was predicated on two voice slots per carrier, but there are many circumstances that could arise that would cause a channel to operate in a single slot mode.

[cvrules90]

Private call turned off? That is suprising. I guess the PSEC remains only a better version of the EDACS system unless converage can be extended somehow.