Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Mobile Operations
Presented To: Augusta County Regional Interoperability Communications Project Working Group
September 23, 2011 (As Revised November 14, 2011) FINAL REPORT
RCC Consultants, Inc. 4900 Cox Road, Suite 235 Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 (804) 353‐0300
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Notice:
This document contains information regarding access to public safety and critical infrastructure telecommunications systems. As such, it may contain and reveal details regarding the location, use, capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities of these systems. Disclosure and dissemination of this information should be limited to those parties engaged in operating, maintaining, or improving the subject systems. No information regarding the locations, system configurations, frequency usage, subscriber units, access methods, operational plans, drawings, diagrams, or documentation related to their use should be disclosed. All such information should be considered as exempt from the Freedom of Information Act under §2.2 3705.2 of the Code of Virginia, regardless of its availability in part or in whole from any other sources.
September 23, 2011 1
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 6 FINDINGS ...... 7 Existing Radio Systems ...... 7 Identified Issues ...... 8 OPPORTUNITIES ...... 12 Solution Alternatives ...... 12 Regional Cooperation outside of Augusta County ...... 13 Frequency Bands ...... 13 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13 EXPECTED COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 15 Expected Cost ...... 15 Implementation Plan ...... 15 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW ...... 17 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 17 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 17 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ...... 17 PROJECT DELIVERABLES ...... 18 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENT ...... 19 REVIEW OF RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS ...... 19 Current Frequency Usage ...... 19 Age of Existing System Equipment...... 21 Subscriber Units ...... 21 SYSTEM MAINTENANCE ...... 22 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT AND CONCERNS ...... 22 Fire Departments and Rescue Squads ...... 22 Law Enforcement Agencies ...... 23 Other Agencies ...... 24 Communications Centers (PSAP) ...... 24 MOBILE DATA SYSTEMS ...... 25 LINK FREQUENCY USAGE ...... 25 INTEROPERABILITY ...... 26 WHAT IS INTEROPERABILITY? ...... 26
September 23, 2011 2
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
STATUS OF INTEROPERABILITY IN THE REGION ...... 28 Summary of Interoperability Capabilities Surrounding Augusta County ...... 29 Interoperability Report Card and Recommendations ...... 29 TECHNOLOGICAL AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 34 NARROWBANDING REQUIREMENTS – PHASE I ...... 34 Narrowbanding Path Forward ...... 34 FREQUENCY BANDS ...... 40 TRADITIONAL COVERAGE ENHANCEMENT TECHNIQUES ...... 42 Receiver Voting ...... 42 Transmitter Steering ...... 42 Multi‐Cast ...... 42 Simulcast ...... 43 DIGITAL OPERATION ...... 44 TRUNKED RADIO SYSTEMS ...... 46 Reduced Channel Congestion ...... 47 Priority Access ...... 48 Interoperability ...... 49 Management and Administration ...... 49 Emergency Alerts and Calls ...... 49 MOBILE DATA SYSTEMS ...... 51 MICROWAVE TRANSPORT SYSTEM ...... 52 DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEMS (IN‐BUILDING COVERAGE) ...... 53 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 56 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 56 COMPARISON OF COVERAGE PERFORMANCE...... 57 SPECTRUM AVAILABILITY ...... 60 UHF (450‐470 MHZ) ...... 60 800 MHZ ...... 62 700 MHZ ...... 62 INTERNAL AVAILABILITY AND REUSE OF UHF FREQUENCIES ...... 63 CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGN ...... 64 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATION ...... 64 COST ESTIMATES ...... 66 INTRODUCTION ...... 66 ASSUMPTIONS ...... 66
September 23, 2011 3
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
RADIO FIXED NETWORK EQUIPMENT ...... 67 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER CONSOLE EQUIPMENT ...... 67 SUBSCRIBER EQUIPMENT ...... 67 COST BREAKDOWN ...... 68 Fixed UHF Infrastructure Equipment ...... 68 Console and Dispatch Center Equipment (no furniture or other outfitting) ...... 69 Subscriber Equipment ...... 69 Premium for Trunked Operation ...... 69 Offset of Initial Cost for Shared Master Site ...... 69 COST SUMMARY ...... 69 TYPICAL ADDITIONAL VENDOR CHARGES ...... 70 SPARES ...... 71 CONTINGENCY AND INTERNAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT ...... 71 SYSTEM MAINTENANCE COSTS BEYOND WARRANTY PERIOD ...... 71 NEXT STEPS ...... 72 PHASE ONE – ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN ...... 73 PHASE TWO– DETAILED DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT ...... 73 PHASE THREE – IMPLEMENTATION ...... 73 APPENDIX A: PROPAGATION COMPARISON & MICROWAVE MAPS ...... 75 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... 88 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE RF COVERAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ...... 89 APPENDIX D: RADIO SYSTEMS INVENTORY ...... 93
September 23, 2011 4
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Tables, Figures and Propagation Maps Table‐1: Regional Licensing Data: ...... 20 Figure 1‐ Interoperability Continuum ...... 27 Table 2: Summary of Interoperability Capabilities Surrounding Augusta County ...... 29 Figure 2: Narrowband/Wideband Compatibility for Analog Systems ...... 35 Table 3: Frequency Bands ...... 40 Table 4: Summary of Frequency Band Characteristics ...... 41 Figure 3: UHF Channel Pairing ...... 55 Table 5: Systems Projected Coverage ...... 58 Table 6: Preliminary Frequency List for Regional Simulcast Applications ...... 61 Map 1 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration ...... 76 Map 2 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration ...... 76 Map 3 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration ...... 77 Map 4 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration ...... 77 Map 5 ‐ Augusta County with State Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration ...... 78 Map 6 ‐ Augusta County with State Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration ...... 78 Map 7 ‐ Augusta County with RCC Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration ...... 79 Map 8 ‐ Augusta County with RCC Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration ...... 79 Map 9 ‐ REGIONAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN w/RCC Antenna Configuration ...... 80 Map 10 ‐ REGIONAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN w/RCC Antenna Configuration ...... 80 Map 11 ‐ City of Waynesboro Landfill Existing Configuration ...... 81 Map 12 ‐ City of Waynesboro Landfill Existing Configuration ...... 81 Map 13 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration ...... 82 Map 14 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration ...... 82 Map 15 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration ...... 83 Map 16 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration ...... 83 Map 17 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration ...... 84 Map 18 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration ...... 84 Map 19 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration ...... 85 Map 20 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration ...... 85 Map 21 – Proposed Conceptual Regional Loop‐Microwave ...... 86 Map 22 – Comparison 700/800 MHz Frequency Band Trunked System ...... 87
September 23, 2011 5
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Executive Summary Introduction
Radio communications technology is rapidly changing. Industry standards are constantly, but slowly, evolving and progressing. Marketplace-driven and commercially focused Federal regulations present challenges and risks to local government entities faced with replacement of existing public safety and governmental information systems. There is an increased expectation for interoperable communications systems. With the formation of the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Communications Working Group, there is an opportunity to develop a regional interoperable radio communications system. The prospective or potential members and beneficiaries of such a regional system were identified as government, public safety, and public service agencies serving the areas of Augusta County, the City of Staunton, and the City of Waynesboro. Other potential participants may include the Augusta County Medical Center and the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport. This report is submitted in response to Augusta County’s Request for Proposals (RFP) to engage a consulting/engineering company to assist the County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro in developing a comprehensive strategy to transition to new interoperable communications system technologies. Scope of Work
The primary objective of this project is to help key decision makers choose a public safety communications strategy for the County and Cities by:
• Determining the radio system users’ desired functionality and interoperability requirements for a public safety communications system. • Assessing the FCC mandated narrowbanding requirements on the existing FCC licenses. • Assessing the condition of the existing communications systems and determining their gaps in meeting the functional, interoperability and narrowbanding requirements. • Helping the County and Cities evaluate technology options for developing a standards- based interoperable communications system operating on UHF frequencies. • Helping the County and Cities choose the best technologies and developing a concept design and a planning budget that will form the foundation of new interoperable communications system for Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro. RCC gathered current FCC license data gathered for the County and two Cities as identified during research of FCC databases, individual interviews and discussions, and submitted copies of licenses. Information from the current FCC licenses was reviewed to determine if there are sufficient existing frequencies upon which to build a system. Additionally, meetings were held with the Regional Working Group Committee, 9-1-1 PSAP Directors, various Law, Fire and Rescue personnel for the County and two Cities to review, elicit and define radio coverage requirements and system expectations.
September 23, 2011 6
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Utilizing antenna site data identified or provided by the political subdivisions, Mr. David Warner with the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and RCC, our engineering staff have performed various propagation analyses in the UHF and 700/800 MHz frequency bands based on available antenna sites and the coverage requirements defined by the County and two Cities. The results of these propagation analyses were reviewed with the Regional Working Group Committee to describe the levels of coverage that could be expected from each of the frequency bands and alternative systems identified. Our team worked with the Regional Committee to develop a consensus on a frequency band and conceptual system alternative that will support several preliminary levels of augmented interoperable operational and coverage requirements for a consolidated system in the near term, which will allow the political subdivisions to migrate to higher levels of interoperable communications in the future as need may require or funding will permit. Findings
Existing Radio Systems There are currently six public safety Land Mobile Radio (LMR) systems operating in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro. Each jurisdiction operates a separate system to support law enforcement, and another to support fire and emergency medical services operations. These systems operate predominantly in the UHF (450-470 MHz) band, although a few systems are licensed in low band VHF (30-50 MHz) and high band VHF (150-174 MHz). Aside from the low band and VHF channels, there are 17 UHF channels between the three political subdivisions in use for primary public safety dispatch. This does not include 2 UHF channels licensed to the Staunton-Augusta Rescue Squad and 2 UHF channels licensed to Augusta Medical Center. Where multiple channels are used or shared to enhance coverage, they are counted as one.
• Six Police Dispatch MHz, (UHF) • Six Fire Dispatch (UHF) • Five EMS/Rescue (UHF) Note: There are several UHF channels in use for public service operations in the City of Staunton that are not included in the above count. Conventional radios operate on fixed radio frequency channels (licensed frequencies through the FCC). The mobile and portable radios used by the County and Cities are multi-channel radios, but they can only operate on one channel at a time. The proper channel is selected by the user. Each of these systems is based on the same simplex technology first used by public safety beginning in the 1940s. Simplex channel systems use a single frequency for transmit and receive. This means that only one user can be speaking while the others are listening. The user speaking must complete the transmission before another user can transmit. Simplex technology is the oldest LMR technology and has been proven reliable over decades of use. Its disadvantages
September 23, 2011 7
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
include limitations on the number of simultaneous conversations and the effective range of coverage since the transmitting and receiving radios must be within range of each other. Despite the challenges and limitations of simplex systems, the County and cities have developed effective LMR systems that serve their needs. Augusta County countered the range problem by developing a system of remote transmit/receive sites (also called Repeater Sites) strategically placed throughout the County to provide the widest area of coverage possible. They have also enhanced this by adding 3 additional receive only sites by use of leased land lines in areas where the system had difficulty receiving mobile and portable radios. Microwave radio systems connect each of the repeater sites to the dispatchers at the emergency communications center. This connection enables the user conversations to be simultaneously transmitted from each repeater site creating a wide area system. This configuration is known as a simulcast system. Radio systems used by many of the countywide agencies do not provide adequate coverage over the entire service area, especially for portable radios. Based on predicted coverage analyses, it appears that dense buildings in the County may have inadequate or potentially no in-building portable coverage. In-building equipment that could enhance coverage for portable radios would add additional costs if required. The coverage area requirements of the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro are confined to a smaller geographic area. They do not need a simulcast system to provide coverage within the City boundaries. As a result, each City operates its systems from a single site located within the City boundaries. The City of Staunton does maintain a second transmit/receive site that operates on a secondary channel. Although the secondary channel is typically used as a second system for special operations such as parades and is not normally used in day to day operations, this second site does provide some improved levels of coverage in the northern portions of the City which could be used by emergency responders when operating in that area of the City as needed.
Identified Issues Existing LMR systems supporting public safety in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro are meeting the needs of these users. RCC conducted interviews with law enforcement, fire and EMS representatives from each jurisdiction. None of the interviewees complained of any major deficiencies in their existing system, outside those technical issues related to meeting the FCC Narrowbanding mandate. Users in Staunton and Waynesboro described the coverage of their existing system as being sufficient. There were no complaints of poor coverage inside most buildings within the City. Some of the more extreme buildings, such as the hospital, have areas where coverage could be improved. Augusta County users were generally satisfied with the coverage provided by their system but did note several areas in the southern part of the County where the radio signal begins to break down and becomes difficult to understand. This condition was demonstrated for the RCC team while conducting an interview at the Riverhead’s Volunteer Fire Department.
September 23, 2011 8
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
The County and Cities have made significant progress in meeting the FCC Narrowbanding mandate. In 1992, the FCC began a proceeding to increase spectrum efficiency in the Private LMR frequency bands below 512 MHz. This reconfiguration of the spectrum was designed to take advantage of newer technologies to achieve greater use of the frequency spectrum by decreasing the bandwidth of the licensed channels thereby increasing the availability of new channels. LMR system currently used by the County and Cities are licensed on frequencies that are based on 25 kHz channel spacing (the spacing between licensed frequencies serves to protect the adjacent channel users from interference from each other). The Narrowbanding mandate would create new channels based on 12.5 kHz channels and eventually 6.25 kHz channel spacing. This spectral efficiency would benefit public safety users by opening new spectrum to licensing in an otherwise crowded frequency band. Licensees in the UHF frequency band must be operating their systems on 12.5 kHz channels not later than January 1, 2013. At the present time, the County and both Cities have begun the process of complying with the narrowband mandate. The County on behalf of itself and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro have requested FCC Narrowbanding licensing assistance from resources provided by the Virginia Information Technology Agency’s (VITA) Integrated Services Program. Mr. David Warner, a radio system engineers on VITA’s staff is assisting in the modification of existing licenses to support Narrowbanding. Some of the existing mobile and portable radios used by the County and Cities are capable of being narrowbanded. Many are too old and are not narrowband capable and must be replaced. The County and Cities are cooperating on a grant application that will supply the funding needed to procure replacements that meet narrowbanding requirements. Much of the infrastructure equipment (remote transmit and receive base stations) are not capable of being narrowbanded and must be replaced. The greatest impact is to the County which currently operates 4 repeater sites and two additional receive only sites. To further complicate matters, due to the County location within the designated area of the Radio Quite Zone, changes to the license and the radio system itself require coordination with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) located in Green Bank, WV. The Radio Quiet Zone is a rectangle of land approximately 13,000 square miles in size that straddles the border area of Virginia, West Virginia and a small portion of Maryland. It includes all land with latitudes between 37.5°N and 39.25°N and longitudes between 78.5°W and 80.5°W. The purpose of this Quiet Zone is to protect the radio telescope used at Green Bank from receiving spurious radio signals. Their engineers are notoriously protective of their operation and obtaining their concurrence on LMR operating characteristics within the Quiet Zone is a long and often contentious process. The limitations imposed by the NRAO often limit the power and amount of radio signal propagated towards the Green Bank facility. These limitations present significant challenges to the users in designing a system that provides sufficient signal to support local operations. At the time RCC began this study, Mr. Warner of VITA had already coordinated the narrowbanded system with the NRAO. During the course of our engineering analysis, we
September 23, 2011 9
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
discovered that the antennas Mr. Warner chose for the sites most likely to impact Green Bank provided the needed protection toward Green Bank but they were so narrow in their propagation toward Augusta County that they actually diminished the level of radio system coverage. This means that once the County’s system was reconfigured to meet the Narrowbanding requirements, they would enjoy less radio system coverage than they have today, which is an unacceptable condition. RCC engineers have identified replacement antennas that we believe provide the required level of protection toward Green Bank but will dramatically improve coverage towards Augusta County. The Deerfield area of the County is the only area that will suffer from reduced coverage. The current system provides some radio coverage (talk-out from the communications center to users) in this valley between the Blue Ridge and Alleghany Mountains but does not adequately support receiving signals from users. A receive-only site was added to enable users in the area to better communicate back to the Augusta Communications Center. The antennas we propose will not provide the same level of LMR coverage in Deerfield. These new antennas will require re-coordination with Green Bank. RCC has had conversations with Mr. Warner about these antennas and will support him in re-coordination efforts. During the course of our study, we were notified by the Staunton Police Department that the City was considering replacing its existing police, public works and school LMR systems with a new digital radio system manufactured by Motorola. All of the LMR equipment used by the police and other City departments must be replaced to meet the Narrowbanding mandate. The City feels that Motorola’s MOTOTRBO™ system provides a low cost and efficient solution. Motorola’s MOTOTRBO™ system was designed to meet the needs of public service organizations like public works and schools departments that do not require the stringent standards of public safety. This and similar systems offered by other manufacturers are efficient cost effective systems but they are not based on public safety technologies. The technologies employed prevent direct interoperability with public safety systems operating on P25 public safety interoperability standards. This deficiency is however avoided in Augusta County because all of the systems are presently operating in an analog simplex environment. Staunton’s MOTOTRBO™ system users will be able to communicate with others simply by switching to a channel programmed to communicate with one of the other radio systems. As part of our analysis, our engineers also examined the feasibility of the County installing its own microwave radio system to interconnect its remote radio sites with the communications center. A modern high-capacity microwave radio system will also provide the County and Cities with many additional benefits. Opting for a private microwave radio system will enable the creation of a local emergency services network that connects all of the County and City emergency communications centers on a private network. This network is the linchpin of the Next Generation 9-1-1 system and Next Generation Public Safety Broadband System concepts. Such a system would open the gates for sharing systems such as 9-1-1 systems. Rather than each jurisdiction purchasing their own system, a single geo-diverse system could be procured that would serve all three jurisdictions. It would allow each communications center to receive and process their own 9-1-1 calls
September 23, 2011 10
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
independently. Capital and maintenance costs would be reduced through the sharing arrangement. This system will also be needed to support broadband applications such as video and data as part of the migration towards broadband data networks for public safety. The connectivity would also support the sharing of IT systems between the three jurisdictions. Our engineers developed a microwave system design that provides a continuous loop system connecting existing antenna towers used by the County and the Cities. The Deerfield site presents the only complication. Because the tower is located on the valley floor, the height of the mountains makes it extremely difficult to create a reliable microwave path from Deerfield to any of the other towers. Additional engineering effort is necessary and perhaps a new tower site will have to be considered. Public Safety agencies in Augusta County have enjoyed a close working and cooperative relationship for years. These agencies all operate in the same radio frequency band making it possible to share frequencies among all public safety users. Fire departments such as the Augusta County Fire Department and Staunton Fire Department have mutual response agreements that assign specific response areas across jurisdictional boundaries. They regularly meet to discuss common strategies, cooperate on grant opportunities, and work together to solve regional problems. Interoperability is more than just sharing common frequencies and meeting to discuss common issues. Interoperability refers to the ability of emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products without any special effort. Wireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the ability of emergency response officials to share information via voice and data signals on demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized. For example, when communications systems are interoperable, police and firefighters responding to a routine incident can talk to each other to coordinate efforts. Communications interoperability also makes it possible for emergency response agencies responding to catastrophic accidents or disasters to work effectively together. Finally, it allows emergency response personnel to maximize resources in planning for major predictable events such as large sporting events or public gatherings, or for disaster relief and recovery efforts. The Department of Homeland Security’s SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum has become the standard by which interoperability is measured nationally. The work of SAFECOM and others have identified and advanced five “critical success factors” essential to interoperable systems. These are:
• Governance • Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) • Technology • Training & Exercises • Usage
September 23, 2011 11
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Achieving interoperability is a multi-dimensional challenge for Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro. To gain an understanding of the region’s interoperability, progress in each of these five interdependent elements must be considered. Agencies in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro have progressed along the Interoperability Continuum in many of the lanes. We recommend focusing attention on formalizing the governance structure, developing regional tactical communications plans and SOPs, implementing a training and exercise program, and putting the plans and SOPs into daily use in all agencies. Opportunities
Solution Alternatives RCC’s team examined several alternative solutions that would achieve the public safety community’s goals for improving communications and interoperability. The following alternatives were considered and presented to the County and Cities:
1. Keep Existing Separate Systems In this alternative the individual jurisdictions would maintain their existing systems. This assumes that the systems will be narrowbanded to a minimum of 12.5 kHz operations by January 1, 2013. It is our opinion that these systems would continue to meet the needs of public safety agencies for the foreseeable future. This alternative allows maximum reuse of existing infrastructure components and mobile and portable radios. Augusta County will have to examine improvements to coverage, especially in the Deerfield valley and the southern extents of the County. A new microwave radio system must be procured to provide suitable interconnection of these sites and as a replacement to the NTelos microwave system. From an interoperability perspective, the existing technologies will support a fairly high level of communications interoperability among public safety users inside the County. The ability to communicate with emergency responders from outside the County will benefit from considering the addition of network infrastructure that operates on nationally recognized mutual-aid frequencies in the VHF and 800 MHz radio frequency spectrum. The addition of this equipment in conjunction with the proper use of the RIOS interoperability gateways will be a solid step towards improving interoperability capabilities. This is the lowest cost alternative. New equipment costs would not be more than that necessary to meet the Narrowbanding mandate. Agencies would make the necessary capital expenditures and arrange for maintenance agreements just as they do today.
2. Share a single Analog Regional Simulcast UHF Radio System In this alternative, the individual LMR systems would be combined into a single LMR system supporting a single county-wide system supporting all public safety agencies. There are sufficient frequencies available to accommodate maintaining separate primary channels for
September 23, 2011 12
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
dispatch and response coordination. Additional channels would be established to create tactical channels for law enforcement, fire and EMS use. These channels would be shared by all agencies in the County. The advantage of this alternative is that it would provide better radio system coverage across a wider area for emergency responders in Staunton and the City of Waynesboro. This is particularly important for fire and EMS agencies in these cities that primary response responsibilities in areas of the County and who respond in mutual-aid to County responders. It offers a more coordinated approach for tactical operations by supporting the National Incident Management System.
Regional Cooperation outside of Augusta County Rockingham County and the City of Harrisonburg and Albemarle County operate separate 800 MHz trunked systems. The Harrisonburg/Rockingham communications system is a twenty channel EDACS PROVOICE simulcast trunking system operating from eleven transmitter sites. The system is interconnected by a 6 GHz microwave system linking all radio communication sites throughout the City of Harrisonburg and Rockingham County. The Albemarle County radio system infrastructure is an 800 MHz Motorola SMARTZONE 4.1 simulcast trunking system operating from four transmitter sites. The system is interconnected by a 6 GHz and 11 GHz microwave system linking all radio communication sites throughout Albemarle County. Currently neither of these two systems is a P25 trunking infrastructure. However, both of these systems are planning for conversion to a P25 trunking infrastructure in the next 3-5 years. Although implementation of a 700 or 800 MHz radio communications system is not an option in the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Project plans at this time, future radio communication systems undertakings or upgrades being considered by neighboring political subdivisions should perhaps be monitored for potential expanded regional participation in the interest of advancing interoperable communications as well as a potential for sharing costs. The question of whether to establish a new regional system or to join and expand an existing local or regional system needs to be carefully considered against the mission of each regional participant.
Frequency Bands Of the frequency bands available in today’s regulatory environment, the most likely to be beneficial for the development of a simulcast trunked system are UHF (450-470 MHz), 700 (764-806) MHz, or 800 (806-861) MHz. While lower bands offer some advantages, they contain limited frequencies, lack organizational structure within their “band plan” and suffer from limitations brought on by the larger physical dimensions of antennas. At present, additional or new frequencies are generally more available in the 700 and 800 MHz bands than any of the others. These higher bands also lend themselves better to “in-building solutions” where that support for coverage enhancement is required. Recommendations
In consideration of factors and points identified above, along with improved services and increased cost associated with current technologies, economies anticipated to be afforded by
September 23, 2011 13
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
consolidation, the impact of National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) – National Radio Quiet Zone special conditions and restrictions, and using the consensus decision process as the foundation, RCC has recommended both short-term and long-range alternatives for achieving improvements or enhancements of the subject radio system(s). These recommendations are summarized below and listed in ranked order (most desirable or critical first). The final decision should be evaluated based on channel availability, feasibility of the partnerships, procedural and legislative constraints, vendor capabilities, features and functionality, and cost. 1. RCC recommends that Augusta County Regional Interoperability participants continue to pursue narrowband compliance on existing radio equipment and systems still requiring this action. It is unlikely that all operations can or will be transitioned to a regional (non- trunked) simulcast system within the required time frame. To continue operating those systems past January 1, 2013, they must be compliant with the FCC requirements. 2. RCC recommends that Augusta County Regional Interoperability participants pursue the development of the key site(s) that are expected to be part of the regional Conceptual UHF Simulcast Non-Trunked System Design solution identified as part of the consensus decision process. While the current site facilities may be sufficient for the current requirements, they may not be fully capable of supporting all modifications required for a consolidated simulcast system. Current sites serve smaller numbers of channels. The proposed microwave network option and equipment will have greater demands for floor space, supply power, equipment cooling, and may have additional consolidated antenna systems. The performance of a tower load analysis at many of the existing sites is both anticipated and necessary since loading standards are continually being modified. 3. RCC recommends that Augusta County Regional Interoperability participants based on the outcome of the consensus decision process start the planning process for the implementation of a consolidated region-wide communications network based on the Regional Conceptual UHF Simulcast Non-Trunked System Design utilizing antenna models identified by RCC in place of those identified by the VITA office of the Commonwealth of Virginia for all participating agencies of public safety and public service systems. Based on very preliminary frequency search evaluation there appears to be sufficient UHF channels available for conversion to implement such a system, but for the reasons explained in more detail later in the Spectrum Availability Section additional frequency coordination will be needed to be certain of their availability for use and conversion in a simulcast system. 4. RCC recommends this to be a long-term goal of the region based on discussions as part of the consensus decision process that Augusta County Regional Interoperability Working Group start the process of developing a comprehensive, strategic plan to implement a region wide communications network, offering standards based trunking service as an enhancement to the UHF Simulcast System Design for all participating agencies for public safety and public service systems. Again, there are likely sufficient UHF channels available for conversion to implement such a system, but their coordination and conversion will be more time consuming as additional frequency coordination will be needed to be certain of their availability for use and conversion in a simulcast trunked system.
September 23, 2011 14
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
5. RCC recommends that Augusta County Regional Interoperability participants should consider and encourage the implementation and use of national mutual-aid base repeater stations and interoperability channels in all bands (VHF, UHF, 700MHz and 800 MHz) throughout Augusta County. These interoperable radio capabilities can be extended to other users through gateway systems, hardware console patches or other similar methods. 6. RCC also recommends the following actions or considerations. These recommendations, in general, apply to any of the alternatives above. o A phased implementation plan could be considered that will allow the regional participants to spread the radio system enhancement costs across multiple years. One method is to phase in agencies one at a time particularly when it comes to the purchase of subscriber equipment.
Expected Costs and Implementation Plan
Expected Cost The cost estimates provided below are based on actual vendor proposal or contract costs for similar systems referenced in recommendation #3, but should be used for budgetary purposes only. The estimates include typical discount levels from list pricing. Actual pricing may vary from the cost estimate. The range of expected costs varies from about $4.3M to $5.2M. Based on previous experience and knowledge with other similar projects the costs for a 16 Channel P25 Digital Simulcast Trunked System as identified as the longer term goal in recommendation #4 could be slightly more than that for a 16 Channel Non-Trunked Simulcast Analog System. This is due to the different types of fixed network equipment components that are required and used in an analog simulcast system are not used in the digital simulcast system because of differences in the technology being utilized. However, some fixed network equipment components used in a digital system may be slightly more expensive than those used in an analog system such as the base station repeaters which may be approximately $1,000 more per unit. The “master site” equipment required in a digital trunked system represents an estimated “entry level” cost of well over $1M.
Implementation Plan Implementation of the expanded UHF simulcast non-trunked radio system is anticipated to take approximately eighteen months to two years. Once the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Working Group has officially determined the choice agreed to as part of the consensus decision process is a choice that best meets its users’ needs and available budget, attention should be turned to regulatory issues. Specifically, that would include acquiring land and obtaining approvals and permits for any new or expanded antenna site(s), as well as submitting FAA notices and FCC license applications. As these steps proceed, detailed specifications will need to be developed and approved by the Working Group. Following approval of the specifications, any procurement documents required should be prepared and released to vendors. During these times, there may be modifications to the selected sites, frequencies, and equipment.
September 23, 2011 15
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
The procurement process, from development of the specifications to an award of a purchase contract may require at least six to nine months for this type of system modification and enhancement. About half of this time will involve reviewing and understanding the manufacturers’ offers and negotiating a purchase contract. Site Acquisition and development can be expected to take a year to complete if no significant problems are encountered. Implementation and testing of the radio system will require an additional 6-9 months, depending primarily on site development, subscriber installation, and product delivery issues. In order to defer some of the cost of the system to later years, the system can be implemented in a multi-phase process, but the physical facilities and infrastructure should be completely built out to support the number of channels expected to be needed. An assumption of 1100 to 1200 users is made based on FCC license information. Understanding the region’s long term goal may be the implementation of a P25 simulcast trunked radio system it should noted that by FCC practice, each planned trunked channel is expected to support at least 100 users (subscriber units). For licensees applying for more than 10 channels at one time, additional loading criteria and reporting requirements are invoked. Therefore, a reasonable number of channels to project for the region’s future system needs would be approximately15. It is usually not cost effective to implement the infrastructure in parts due to additional mobilization charges that the vendor would levy to bring an installation team on site multiple times or to work with a “live system.” It may also be more risky to develop a system with a significantly fewer number of channels than the number anticipated in the final system configuration. Fixed Equipment for these channels are often planned and purchased in advance of their use, with turn up and transition over time in a phased approach.
September 23, 2011 16
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Project Overview
Rapidly changing radio and data communications technology, evolving industry standards, and marketplace driven Federal regulations present challenges and risks to local government entities that are faced with the replacement of existing public safety and governmental information systems. With this background, the Working Group, with their public safety staffs have recognized the need to evaluate options for frequency bands, regulatory requirements, and advancements in technology as part of their plan to improve existing public safety two-way voice and data communications systems. There are opportunities to address capacity, coverage, compatibility, and interoperability. Because of the significant investment of a consolidated regional system, it is also necessary to look well into the future. This report provides guidance in short and long range plans for communications systems upgrades. Scope of Work
The Working Group of the County of Augusta and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro authorized this project following the issuance of a consultant service agreement between Augusta County and RCC Consultants, Inc. The purpose of this report is to provide information to support decision makers in developing and reaching consensus decision and best course for achieving improved public safety interoperable voice communications in the referenced political subdivisions. The primary focus of this study was to evaluate existing two-way voice radio systems in use by public safety agencies, review narrowbanding requirements and progress, review gaps and weaknesses of existing systems, review frequency availability and coverage performance issues and to make recommendations for future improvements in public safety voice communication systems. Project Methodology
RCC conducted on-site interviews with representatives of the agencies and organizations, to establish the nature, structure and aims of their communications processes and requirements. A variety of data were collected from available sources for use in the analysis of the existing communications systems. A basic radio propagation analysis for the existing Augusta County system was performed using RCC’s ComSite Design® software. The County’s system was selected because it represented the most extensive distribution of equipment and sites in one system, and the widest single service area. The results reflect that mobile coverage is adequate for most of the county with the exception of some of the southern and northwestern areas of the County utilizing three primary transmit sites. However, even with four receive sites located in several areas of the County
September 23, 2011 17
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
on-street portable coverage is limited by terrain features. In-building portable coverage is even more limited in the more rural areas of the County. Additionally, RCC was provided with a database of existing commercial antenna structures for review and comparison with existing public safety facilities. This resulted in the identification of the Troxel Gap Road commercial tower facilities in the Middlebrook area of the County as a potential location for a site to improve system coverage in the southern area of the County and also provide a level of coverage in Craigsville. Frequency bands were also reviewed and evaluated in terms of availability, suitability, and expected coverage performance. Each frequency band has attributes which impact its overall desirability for use. Some attributes are purely physical, while others are based on the regulatory framework, organization, and availability of spectrum. Project Deliverables
Project deliverables include: 1. Preliminary Assessment Report 2. Technology Decision Matrix 3. First Scoring Meeting/Summary 4. Second Scoring Meeting/Final Scoring Summary 5. Develop Strategy Plan/Report for Achieving Improved Public Safety Voice Communications in Augusta County and Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro
September 23, 2011 18
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENT Nationwide, public safety professionals rely upon radio communication systems to support mission critical operations. Expected growth and increasing demand for public safety and public services are placing increasing pressure on the current two-way voice communication systems that support them. There are also regulatory mandates for narrowband operation that will require the replacement of some existing equipment within the next 15 to 16 months. Equipment evaluation and reprogramming is either in progress or pending as most of the entities licenses have been modified to comply with narrowbanding or Quiet Zone concurrence is still pending. This section provides a description of the existing system infrastructure for the public safety organizations of the political subdivisions participating in this study. Review of Radio Communication Systems
Today, the majority of these organizations operate independent conventional UHF frequency band systems with a few systems operating high band VHF and low band VHF two-way voice radio systems which support public safety responders, public service agencies, and administrative activities. In combination there are at least ten (10) “primary fixed network equipment” sites located throughout the respective service areas, with several located in the County serving primarily as receive only sites. As a result of the latest actions to begin compliance with narrowband mandates through regulatory licensing and renewed coordination requirements with the NRAO, recent, new and revised special conditions pertaining to ERP limitations in the direction (azimuth) of the NRAO for transmitter operation have been imposed which will cause some additional gaps in current system coverage. This is especially true for the Deerfield area of the County because the new conditions will require a change in the existing antenna model and configuration at the Elliotts Knob site. Under previous special conditions the use and application of an omni-directional antenna was possible but will now require replacement with a corner reflector-directional type antenna to insure compliance with the new conditions. Changes to antenna models and configurations will also be required for the Devils Knob and Massanutten Peak tower sites thus affecting to a lesser degree system coverage provided from these locations. With the exceptions noted the change to narrowbanding is not expected to have an overall negative impact on coverage of the existing systems located within the two Cities although Waynesboro is still undergoing regulatory coordination and waiting the results of their narrowband licensing process. In addition to the coverage issues associated with narrowbanding, gaps in coverage were also identified and reported for some of the areas in the southern part of the County both east and west of Interstate 81 and were also noted in the northwest area of the County. This corresponds with coverage analysis performed based on assessment of capabilities of the existing system design and engineering parameters.
Current Frequency Usage RCC reviewed FCC license database information for Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro for public safety radio services. Additional searches were made by licensee
September 23, 2011 19
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
name and then by FCC Registration Number (FRN). Specific frequencies were also searched to obtain license information when the frequency was revealed during discussions or review of information. With the exception of those licenses held by the Staunton-Augusta Rescue Squad and Augusta Medical Center all FCC licenses are held by each of the named local governments. A few of these licenses are in the Business Radio Services, but are not being used for traditional public safety systems. That review resulted in the retrieval of unofficial “file” copies of 35 licenses across the various bands. The table below lists the call signs. A compilation of complete copies for each call sign is contained in a separate document. Also reflected in the table under each licensee is a notation of “narrowband readiness.” Frequencies between 150 and 512 MHz are subject to narrowbanding mandates, discussed elsewhere. The notation simply indicates the number of licenses which need some action (for the license and licensed equipment) to become narrowband compliant.
Table‐1: Regional Licensing Data:
September 23, 2011 20
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Further analysis of the UHF channels and spectrum availability is explained in more detail later in the report.
Age of Existing System Equipment Aside from the regulatory requirements for Narrowbanding, the age of fixed equipment can be a factor in the development of a consolidated or enhanced system design. It is common to see fixed equipment used well beyond its normal expected lifetime of seven to ten years. Another driving force for the replacement of communications equipment in recent years is the rapid advancement of technology. Equipment becomes obsolete not because of its condition or age but because its manufacture has been discontinued, the technology has advanced, and often the parts are no longer available in their previous physical packages and form factors. An aging communications infrastructure increases the risk that a maintenance problem could result in an extended outage. However, replacing equipment without the expectation that its cost will be fully amortized should also be avoided.
Subscriber Units Subscriber units consist of the mobile, portable and control station radios used by the various agencies to access the communications systems. The age of these radios is expected to vary between just a few months old to as much as 15 years old. Most of the current subscriber base is expected to be supported by local repair facilities, even if considered obsolete or out of production by the manufacturer. Some of the subscriber equipment, even if serviceable, will require replacement in order to comply with impending narrowband requirements. Specific equipment requiring replacement was identified in the Radio System Analysis Report that was prepared by the radio engineering department of the Virginia information Technologies Agency (VITA) which RCC finds no disagreement with based on review and evaluation of this information and site visits. Any change in frequency band, or conversion to digital modulation or trunking features will require replacement of all but the newest of existing units, and those may still require costly firmware upgrades. The replacement of subscribers would represent a significant portion of the cost of any system. While existing systems may allow the private purchase and use by individuals in volunteer agencies, any new or advanced technology is likely to require the wholesale replacement of personally owned equipment. The replacement equipment may be beyond the budget of these users, and the political subdivisions may be unwilling or unable to replace equipment on a “unit for unit” basis for all current users. If not carefully considered and fully addressed, this could result in resistance to the change. Generally licensees of consolidated systems will be responsible for such decisions, and will likely have to exert some control over use, which will lessen the autonomy of some agencies served. The impact of these factors or decisions should be considered as part of the evaluation process. A slow migration and continued operation of independent systems by some user groups may lessen the impact of these subscriber issues, but may also impact frequency resources if transitioning to a replacement system in the same band as the current use (e.g. the channel
September 23, 2011 21
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
resources of a user currently operating at UHF may be needed, forcing an earlier abandonment or modification to the current system). Based on current license information, there are over 3,100 mobile units licensed to all entities across all bands. However, many of these reflect multiple frequencies or duplication of users. For example, two different fire departments or rescue squads might both be licensed for 250 units to cover their own use, as well as their mutual aid partners. The licenses would reflect 500 units between the two licenses, when there are likely 250 or less actual units. They may also have different frequencies in the same radio covered by separate licenses, each of which reflects the same number of units. Similarly, they may operate multiple radios in the same vehicle in order to communicate with different agencies. Additionally, many units are often assigned to individuals or installed in special purpose vehicles, such that there are even fewer “active units” on the system. An estimate of 1,100 to 1,200 potential users was developed after a review of the FCC licenses. System Maintenance
Currently, maintenance for virtually all equipment owned by the political subdivisions is provided by Clear Communications which has locations based in both Staunton and Charlottesville. Clear Communications is an authorized dealer for Motorola Two Way Radio as well as an authorized Motorola Service Shop (MSS). Clear Communications enjoys a very good reputation for customer service and was reported by their customers to have a very capable staff. Service representatives are assigned as primary contacts for each customer to maintain the best possible relationships and service levels. Migration to more complex radio systems may require ongoing maintenance and support services to be bundled with and controlled/coordinated by the equipment manufacturer. It is extremely important to address expectations for customer service, response times, and support requirements as part of any procurement effort. Departmental Operating Environment and Concerns
This section is intended to provide an overview of how the current communications systems are used. Information in this section was obtained from interviews, information and reports provided to RCC, and a review of FCC license information.
Fire Departments and Rescue Squads The Fire Departments and Rescue Squads for the County and two Cities operating within the geographical boundary of Augusta County operate on various frequencies in the UHF frequency band. UHF is also used to support each of their respective paging systems. Augusta County also shares paging channels with Staunton, Harrisonburg/Rockingham County and Rockbridge County. Occasionally communications may be delayed having to wait for them to complete toning a call. Augusta County operates several receive only sites on their Fire and Rescue channels which are located in the Craigsville, Deerfield and Mt. Solon areas of the County. The primary transmit sites are located at Devils Knob, Elliott’s Knob and Massanutten Peak. These sites are
September 23, 2011 22
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
interconnected by a 6 GHz microwave system linking these radio communication sites to the Augusta County ECC/PSAP in a loop configuration. Due to its proximity to Rockingham County and provision of mutual aid responses the Weyers Cave Fire Department has the capability to operate on the Harrisonburg/Rockingham County 800 MHz system as well as the Augusta County through radio equipment provided by Harrisonburg/Rockingham County for this purpose. Some level of coordination and monitoring goes on between the respective communications centers and no problems were identified with this arrangement. The primary transmit sites for Staunton Fire and EMS services are located at Reservoir Hill and the Staunton Water Treatment Facility. The primary transmit site for Waynesboro Fire and EMS services is the Gravel Bed Water Tank. These operate as conventional analog communication systems. Overall, portable coverage for the Fire, EMS and Rescue agencies operating within the two Cities and of the County is generally considered to be adequate except in some of the southern areas of the County east and west of Interstate 81 and some of the remote (Ex: Deerfield west in the County) or fringe areas of system coverage in the County service areas. In-building coverage was reported to be overall good in both of the Cities and the more urban areas around them in the County with the exception of the east end of the City of Staunton along the Route 250 corridor (Ex: Wal-Mart Store) near Interstate 64 and the City Limits. In other areas of the County in- building coverage was indicated to be adequate in light (residential) to medium constructed buildings but was questionable in heavy constructed building. In-building portable coverage requirements can vary by area and agency but is generally considered to be essential in the areas of dense population and construction. In-street portable coverage is in general desirable by all users.
Law Enforcement Agencies The Law Enforcement Agencies for the County and two Cities operating within the geographical boundary of Augusta County primarily operate on various frequencies in the UHF frequency band. However, they also have the capability to use the SIRS (Statewide Interdepartmental Radio System) low band frequency 39.54 MHz system that can be used statewide by local law enforcement to communicate between localities and the Virginia State Police (VSP). The primary County transmit sites are located at Devils Knob, Elliott’s Knob and Massanutten Peak. These sites are interconnected by a 6 GHz microwave system linking these radio communication sites to the Augusta County ECC/PSAP in a loop configuration. The primary transmit sites for Staunton Police are located at Reservoir Hill and the primary transmit site for Waynesboro Police is the Gravel Bed Water Tank. These operate as conventional analog communication systems. Portable coverage for the Law Enforcement agencies operating within the two Cities and of the County was indicated be similar to that of the Fire, EMS and Rescue service areas. In the County, Law Enforcement noted that the Afton Mountain area, the area of Route 250 west of Lone Fountain and the Jennings Branch area were areas where coverage problems were also
September 23, 2011 23
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
experienced. As noted previously in-building portable coverage requirements can vary by area and agency but is generally considered to be essential in the areas of dense population and construction. In-street portable coverage is in general desirable by all users.
Other Agencies Staunton-Augusta Rescue Squad is authorized and licensed to operate a two channel UHF radio system with two repeaters located at Reservoir Hill operating on frequencies 453. 6750 and 453.1875 under FCC Call Signs WPLZ524 and WQCD294. Operationally they are referred to as SARS 1 and SARS 2. As noted earlier Call Sign WPLZ524 has not completed its narrowband readiness at this time. Augusta Medical Center is authorized and licensed to operate a three channel UHF radio system with two repeaters located at Augusta Medical Center operating on frequencies 464.8250, 462.3250 and 461.2250 under FCC Call Signs WPAC814. They also are authorized and licensed under a second Call Sign WPEX934 with frequencies (453.0125 & 458.0125) for Mobile Area of Operation within a radius around specified coordinates within Augusta County. As noted earlier neither of these Call Signs has completed their narrowband readiness at this time. Augusta Service Authority has licenses authorized and issued under Call Signs WPIA661 [frequency 45.4400], WPZR590 [frequency 451.2500] and WPWD345 [frequency 956.36875]. Augusta Public Schools has a license authorized and issued under Call Sign WQFX266 [frequency(s) 72.1800 & 72.1000]. Staunton Public Schools has a license authorized and issued under Call Sign WQOA868 [frequency 461.3250]. Also, Call Sign WPRW257 [frequency 159.8250] previously granted 02- 26-2001 expired 02-26-2011. Staunton (Gypsy Hill Golf Course) has a license authorized and issued under Call Sign WQHM714 [frequency(s) 452.6625, 457.6625 & 457.7125] for mobile area of operation only. Staunton (Public Works Department) has a license authorized and issued under Call Sign WPQE669 [frequency 154.1000]. Waynesboro (Department of Emergency Management) has a license authorized and issued under Call Sign WPBV812 [frequency(s) 169.4250, 169.5000 & 170.2500]. Waynesboro (Department of Emergency Management) has a license authorized and issued under Call Sign WPBV812 [SIRS-frequency 39.5400].
Communications Centers (PSAP) During the process of gathering information, the following communications centers were visited:
• County of Augusta • City of Staunton • City of Waynesboro
September 23, 2011 24
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
The primary purpose of the visits was to review current operations, capabilities and radio systems accessible to and operated from each center. During the visits discussions were held with administrative personnel and other specialists associated with the operations of these facilities. The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) for Augusta County is located at 18 Government Center Lane, Verona, Virginia, the Staunton ECC is located at 116 West Beverly Street, Staunton, Virginia and Waynesboro’s ECC is located at 205 S. Wayne Avenue, Waynesboro, Virginia. The Augusta, Staunton and Waynesboro systems have a combined total of twelve (12) Motorola Gold Elite console operator positions which utilize control stations to control their remote transmitters with each PSAP location having four (4) console operator positions for their current dispatch functionality. The Augusta County ECC serves as a back-up PSAP for both the City of Staunton and Waynesboro and the City of Staunton PSAP serves as the back-up for Augusta County. None of the existing PSAP locations appear to have sufficient space or expansion capacity to serve the needs of a regional center should the political subdivisions considers such an option in the future. Mobile Data Systems
Mobile data system operations are currently being utilized for public safety operations in a limited basis by the County and two Cities. Law Enforcement agencies in Augusta County and the City of Staunton use their mobile data computers/terminals to primarily receive and access information from their computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management systems (RMS). Fire/EMS in Augusta County utilizes their mobile data computers/terminals in much the same way. In the City of Waynesboro, mobile computers are used to communicate with the Capital Wireless Information Net (CapWIN) as they are not currently using a CAD system for any of their public safety operations. The County and two Cities mobile data computing capabilities are accomplished through the use of portable computers with an AirCard (card plug-in for PC’s) that provides high speed broadband wireless connection to the internet or Wi-Fi hot spots. These mobile data systems and equipment are not presently being utilized to dispatch calls for service (CFS) for any of the public safety agencies as this is still done by voice communications from each of the respective political subdivisions PSAP/dispatch facilities. Enhanced use and additional integration of mobile data system operations is recognized by the entities and is considered a future goal for all public safety operations. Link Frequency Usage
With the possible exception of the Weyers Cave Volunteer Fire Department the use of one way or point to point links are currently not utilized for communications connectivity.
September 23, 2011 25
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
INTEROPERABILITY What is Interoperability?
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sparked a concerted effort to improve interoperability among local, state and federal emergency response organizations and agencies. In the decade since those deadly attacks, local, state and federal emergency responders have been called on to respond to deadly flooding and storm damage in the Northeast, wildfires burning hundreds of thousands of acres in Texas, deadly tornados in Joplin, MO, and mass killings at Virginia Tech. These and many other similar events have forever changed the manner in which our Nation’s first responders plan, organize, prepare and respond to disasters and large emergency events. The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum has become the standard by which interoperability is measured nationally. SAFECOM is an emergency communications program of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Emergency Communications and Office for Interoperability and Compatibility. As a stakeholder-driven program, SAFECOM is led by an Executive Committee, in support of the Emergency Response Council groups that are primarily composed of State and local emergency responders and intergovernmental and national public safety communications associations. Both groups regularly convene to discuss interoperability and emergency communications, and to provide input on the challenges, needs, and best practices of emergency responders. The Office of Emergency Communications develops policy, guidance, and future initiatives within the Federal agency. Interoperability refers to the ability of emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products without any special effort. Wireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the ability of emergency response officials to share information via voice and data signals on demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized. For example, when communications systems are interoperable, police and firefighters responding to a routine incident can talk to each other to coordinate efforts. Communications interoperability also makes it possible for emergency response agencies responding to catastrophic accidents or disasters to work effectively together. Finally, it allows emergency response personnel to maximize resources in planning for major predictable events, such as large sporting events or public gatherings, or for disaster relief and recovery efforts. The work of SAFECOM and others have identified and advanced five “critical success factors” essential to interoperable systems. These are:
• Governance • Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) • Technology • Training & Exercises • Usage
September 23, 2011 26
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Achieving interoperability is a multi-dimensional challenge for Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro. To gain an understanding of the region’s interoperability, progress in each of these five interdependent elements must be considered. To help guide efforts in achieving interoperability, the SAFECOM project combined the critical success factors into the Interoperability Continuum (Figure #1). Each critical success factor represents a row, or lane, on the Continuum. Along each lane are steps toward reaching optimal interoperability, with the maximum level of interoperability represented on the far right side of the lane.
Figure 1‐ Interoperability Continuum
September 23, 2011 27
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Status of Interoperability in the Region
Public safety agencies in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro have enjoyed a close working and cooperative relationship for years. The agencies all operate in the same radio frequency band, making it possible to share frequencies among all public safety users. Fire departments such as the Augusta County Fire Department and Staunton Fire Department have mutual response agreements that assign specific response areas across jurisdictional boundaries. They regularly meet to discuss common strategies, cooperate on grant opportunities, and work together to solve regional problems. Despite this high level of regional coordination, when compared to the Interoperability Continuum, the level of interoperability could be improved. While public safety agencies in Augusta County have the technology to establish direct voice communications among emergency responders, there are technological impediments to being able to communicate with emergency responders from surrounding counties and cities should an event occur that is beyond the capacity of local emergency responders to manage. Augusta County is part of the Virginia Office of Commonwealth Preparedness (RPAC) Region III. RPACs were established through in 2007 based on the Commonwealth’s Emergency Preparedness plan. The Commonwealth’s Interoperability Coordinator’s Office established special sub-committees in each RPAC region to address interoperability. These became known as RPAC-I committees. RPAC region III is known as the Central Virginia region. It contains the following 20 jurisdictions: Albemarle County Greene County Amherst County Halifax County Appomattox County Lunenburg County Augusta County City of Lynchburg Buckingham County Mecklenburg County Campbell County Nelson County Charlotte County Prince Edward County City of Charlottesville City of Staunton Cumberland County City of South Boston Fluvanna County City of Waynesboro
Only two of these Virginia counties border Augusta County. The remaining four Virginia counties bordering Augusta are split between two other RPAC regions. When examining interoperability among the counties and cities that are positioned closest to Augusta County, the use of different frequency bands and multiple proprietary radio system technologies complicate interoperability. The following table summarizes the land mobile radio system types used in each bordering jurisdiction.
September 23, 2011 28
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Summary of Interoperability Capabilities Surrounding Augusta County Table 2: Summary of Interoperability Capabilities Surrounding Augusta County
The Virginia State Police operates a UHF trunked radio system manufactured by Motorola. Although this system is based on recognized interoperability standards, it is not completely compatible with the UHF or 800 MHz systems operated in the region. Troopers can communicate directly with UHF systems if these frequencies are programmed into their mobile radios. This capability is not present in their portable radios, as they operate in the 800 MHz frequency band and are primary used to communicate with vehicular repeaters located in the Troopers’ patrol cars. The State Police do not normally program local frequencies in their mobile radios, further complicating interoperability. Some State Police portable radios have been programmed to operate on some of the larger 800 MHz trunked radio systems in the State where compatible technologies are used. The technical capabilities of land mobile radio systems will be discussed in more detail during the discussion of technology below.
Interoperability Report Card and Recommendations The following discussion addresses the five lanes of the Interoperability Continuum and where Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro are positioned along each lane.
Governance SAFECOM places great emphasis on establishing a common governing structure to address interoperability. Governance is the forum for addressing and solving interoperability issues and will improve the policies, processes, and procedures by enhancing communication, coordination and cooperation among the regional stakeholders. Governance provides the framework in which stakeholders collaborate and make decisions that represent a common objective. At the federal level, Governance is assumed to occur at the regional level, but within the larger scope of a state plan promoting interoperability. The Commonwealth of Virginia’s plan promotes
September 23, 2011 29
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
governance at the RPAC-I level. Because the jurisdictions in the region that are most likely to be called to assist in a large event that exceeds local capabilities are split among three planning areas, addressing regional interoperability is somewhat more difficult. Even though there is a great deal of coordination between agencies in Augusta County, and key multi-disciplinary staff collaborates on a regular basis, there is a need to develop formal policies, process and procedures. The County and Cities should expand these discussions and planning effort by inviting appropriate representatives from adjoining Counties to join a more formal governance structure.
Standard Operating Procedures Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are written guidelines or instructions for incident response. They typically contain both operational and technical components. Established SOPs provide the foundation for the successful coordination of a response across disciplines and jurisdictions. They are essential to the development and deployment of any interoperable communications solutions. Most individual agencies operate under SOPs developed specifically for the individual agency. They are not shared and result in uncoordinated procedures and can hinder effective multi- agency/multi-discipline response. Regional SOPs are developed as a result of good governance practices. The County and Cities, along with the regional stakeholders, should focus on developing regional SOPs. The National Incident Management Plan should serve as the foundation of these plans. Additional guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the form of the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide (NIFOG) is also available to help prepare these plans.
Technology Technology has received the most emphasis in relationship to interoperability. The Federal Government and local governments have spent billions of dollars implementing interoperable communications systems and networks. Even though technology is an important component in improving interoperability, it is not the sole driver of an optimal interoperability solution. Progress along the other lanes of interoperability is important. The direct compatibility of voice radio systems and the sharing of frequencies among public safety agencies in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro place them fairly far on the technology lane of the Interoperability Continuum. Deficiencies arise if there is a need to communicate with emergency responders from neighboring jurisdictions, especially responders from Albemarle County and Rockingham County, who operate 800 MHz trunked radio systems, and from Nelson County, who operate systems in an incompatible frequency band. The County and Cities own mobile interoperability gateways to bridge the gap between these incompatible systems. Interoperability gateways allow voice interoperability between otherwise incompatible radio systems by re-transmitting voice over interconnected radio subscriber
September 23, 2011 30
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
equipment. A compatible portable radio (for example, a portable radio compatible with Albemarle’s or Rockingham’s 800 MHz systems and programmed with their frequencies) is connected to the gateway. The gateway connects these disparate radios by converting incoming and outbound radio transmissions to Internet Protocol packets in the gateway. Interoperability gateways have been successful in helping to achieve interoperability in many areas across the United States. They are fairly easy to use and are proven effective, but their effectiveness is dependent upon careful regional plans, training of personnel, and practice in their use. Public safety agencies in the area own interoperability gateways manufactured by SyTech Corporation called Radio Interoperability System (RIOS). This gateway has been adopted by the Commonwealth Interoperability Office and is in wide use throughout the Commonwealth. During our interviews, many users reported that they have limited training and testing of these systems. In their use, the system has performed as expected, but they have not performed to the complete satisfaction of the users. Interviews revealed a lack of sufficient SOPs, training, and experience in their use.
Training and Exercises Effective training and exercise programs are essential to ensuring that interoperable technologies work properly and that emergency responders are able to effectively communicate during emergencies. There is an old firefighter’s axiom that states: “let no man’s ghost return to say his training let him down.” It is important that everyone within an organization who may be involved in responding to a large-scale emergency be appropriately prepared. This extends beyond just the command staff, which might not be immediately available at the time of the emergency. All officers and operational supervisors must have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and how they fit into the wider picture. Training occurs at the individual agency level, where responders are provided training on their particular equipment and applications. At the regional level, training expands to the agency’s role and responsibilities during a multi-agency/multi-disciplinary response. Exercises conducted as part of a comprehensive training and exercise program help to validate plans by testing their ability to be effectively implemented, test interoperability equipment, bring together those likely to be involved in an incident in a controlled environment, and build relationships among regional stakeholders. Exercises simulate real-world events and provide an opportunity for teaching and practicing under controlled conditions. SAFECOM recommends the following types of exercises:
• Single Agency Tabletop Exercises for Key Field and Support Staff – Tabletop exercises are slow, controlled events used to promote planning and identify response gaps. They introduce key agency members to their roles and responsibilities in the management of an emergency event, which helps to promote routine use of interoperability mechanisms.
September 23, 2011 31
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
• Multi-Agency Tabletop Exercises for Key Field and Support Staff – These exercises promote and reinforce the need for agencies and discipline to work together in a coordinated incident response. Like the single-agency exercises, key staff is introduced to their roles in establishing proper incident management and communications networks, and working collaboratively to effectively manage the event.
• Multi-Agency Functional Exercise Involving All Staff – Functional exercises provide the opportunity to test regional plans and interoperable communications systems through a simulated event involving all regional stakeholders. These events are an excellent opportunity to test plans, identify gaps in technologies or capabilities and provide an excellent opportunity for emergency responders to gain valuable emergency response experience in a safe environment. Optimal interoperability not only involves equipment familiarization and an introduction to regional/state interoperability plans, its success will be assured by regular, comprehensive and realistic exercises that address potential problems in the region and involve the participation of all personnel.
Usage The last lane in the Interoperability Continuum involves how often interoperable communications technologies are used. Success in this element is contingent upon the daily use of standard regional plans. The Interoperability Continuum views usage in these primary response categories:
• Planned Events – Scheduled events for which the date and time are known such as large festivals or sporting events, which involve multiple responding agencies.
• Localized Emergency Incidents – Incidents occurring within Augusta County or the Cities of Staunton or Waynesboro where only responders from those agencies respond.
• Regional Incident Management – Coordination of response where emergency responders from neighboring jurisdictions or jurisdictions within the region respond to an emergency event. It has been proven that when plans and systems are used every day to manage routine and emergency events, responders are more likely to follow the plans that have been prepared and training provided, and has been tested through exercises resulting in an optimal interoperability solution. Agencies in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro have progressed along the Interoperability Continuum in many of the lanes. This has been demonstrated in several ways over the years. One example is where the three political subdivisions and the Weyers Cave Airport come together and conduct a mock disaster exercise at the Airport every three years that engages and tests Law Enforcement, Fire, EMS, VDEM, American Red Cross, Augusta Health Center and other organizations planning, preparation and response to this type of event. Other examples have been annual testing of their all-hazards plan, co-hosting active shooter incident exercises at a local school as well as simunitions training exercises for Law Enforcement
September 23, 2011 32
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
personnel. Recognizing there is always opportunity for improvement and advancement in this area we recommend that the political subdivisions continue to proceed with their efforts to enhance formalizing the governance structure, developing regional tactical communications plans and SOPs, implementing a training and exercise program, and putting the plans and SOPs into daily use in all agencies.
September 23, 2011 33
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
TECHNOLOGICAL AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Narrowbanding Requirements – Phase I
For any equipment remaining operational after January 1, 2013 on frequencies between 150 and 512 MHz, the FCC has mandated that it operate in a narrow (12.5 KHz or less) bandwidth, or meet spectral efficiency requirements if operating with advanced technologies in a wider bandwidth. Any equipment purchased after 1997 can generally be expected to be Phase-I narrowband capable because of FCC requirements for type acceptance. However, that capability does not mean compliance. Those radios are capable of operating in a wider bandwidth mode, and most still do. It should be understood that the Narrowbanding mandate encompasses two distinct phases of band splitting. The first, which we are dealing with presently, is the split from 25 kHz down to 12.5 kHz. Phase-II of the Narrowbanding mandate will impose a further reduction of bandwidth utilization down to 6.25 kHz therefore splitting the 12.5 kHz channels in-half and redoubling channel availability in the future. A cut-over date for Phase-II Narrowbanding has not been determined at this time. However, it is anticipated that this Phase-II Narrowbanding date will be far enough into the future such that most existing inventories of today may be retired or ready for replacement at that time. Radio equipment being manufactured at this time may have the 6.25 kHz option therefore enabling those radios ready for Phase-II. It would be worthwhile for Public Safety entities that are preparing to purchase new radios for the purpose of satisfying Narrowbanding requirements to be diligent in examining the radio equipment for this option in order to be compliant with Phase-II. RCC does not anticipate that any new, expanded, or consolidated system of the expected capacity and complexity needed for the Augusta region would be completed and ready for service by January 1, 2013. For this reason, any plan should contemplate the requirement to convert existing systems to narrowband operation as an interim step as noted earlier in Recommendation #1 on page 14 of this report. In addition, and due to the uncertainty of issuance of any waivers from the FCC regarding postponement of the January 1, 2013 deadline, it is imperative that licensees proceed with the objective of complying with the Narrowbanding mandate.
Narrowbanding Path Forward The approach to completing the Narrowbanding obligation requires planning and implementation on many different levels. This includes communications within individual departments, between internal agencies, between external departments/agencies and between those political subdivisions for the purposes of interoperability. The Narrowbanding conversion methodology requires a planned approach that should include representatives from all identified user agencies and the selected radio service provider that will be performing the actual work of reprogramming the radio systems equipment and subscriber units. It is also important to understand that wideband (25 kHz) and narrowband (12.5 kHz) systems are considered to be incompatible even with the most basic conventional analog systems.
September 23, 2011 34
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
For system-wide changes such as those required for Narrowbanding on an active system, there will be incompatibility challenges if all equipment cannot transition simultaneously. This would occur during interim periods where some, but not all equipment has been converted. For radios that have been converted to narrowband, their transmissions will sound weak and low in volume to radios which have not yet been converted. Reception by radios converted, of the transmissions from radios not yet converted will be much louder, and will likely be distorted. Finally, optimal coverage is attained when the bandwidth of the receiver matches that of the transmitter. If the receiver bandwidth is wider than that of the desired transmitter(s), then there is noise within the bandwidth of the receiver that will not be overcome by the desired signal. When the desired signal is weak, there is comparatively more noise present in the receiver’s bandwidth, and the signal to noise ratio suffers.
Figure 2: Narrowband/Wideband Compatibility for Analog Systems
September 23, 2011 35
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
In order to mitigate incompatibility issues, systems components should be converted simultaneously on a channel-by-channel basis. For example, if a department/agency is to be converted to narrowband operation and has a single repeater base station with 10 portable and 10 mobile radios, then the conversion process would follow this basic process (assumes all licensing criteria have been competed): 1) Suspend all operations on the radio network 2) Reprogram the base/repeater to Narrowband mode 3) Reprogram all mobiles and portable units to the Narrowband mode 4) Restore radio network operations The preceding is an example of the most fundamental task process for narrowband conversion of a simple analog system and disregards the logistics of planning and implementation. The following section will address or identify items associated with the planning and implementation specific to the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Working Group and stakeholders.
Narrowbanding Planning Considerations for the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Working Group The County of Augusta will have some unique Narrowbanding challenges due to the simulcast feature of their UHF system and the extensive interoperable networks established both on a local and regional level. Being a simulcast system, the Narrowbanding process will require that all base/repeater stations associated with an individual simulcast channel be reprogrammed at the same time. This will facilitate getting the channel(s) back on-the-air as quickly as possible. One method of accomplishing this would be to have technicians be stationed at each of the tower site locations of Massanutten, Elliott’s Knob, and Devil’s Knob in order to perform the reprogramming of the base/repeaters (for both the transmitters and receivers) at those locations simultaneously. In addition, the County also maintains three satellite receiver locations 1) Deerfield, 2) Verona ECC and 3) Mt. Solon that would need to be reprogrammed in concert with the base/repeaters. The County will need to discuss with the radio service provider all Narrowbanding scenario options in order to determine the most efficient method of dealing with the simulcast repeaters and satellite receivers sites. Another option may be to analyze the costs associated with setting up the base/repeaters for remote switching to a second channel preconfigured for the Narrowband mode. This would most likely involve modifications to the Gold Elite dispatch console in order to facilitate the channel switching of the base/repeaters. In either case, it is important to note that there may be additional radio channel downtime associated with the Narrowbanding implementation of the simulcast systems. In addition, the County shares radio system resources with both the City of Staunton and the City of Waynesboro and mutually in return. Because of these relationships, the Narrowbanding planning should incorporate all of these systems in a coordinated effort to convert all infrastructure and subscriber equipment together in the least amount of time possible. Since narrowband and wideband systems are not considered compatible on a radio-to-radio basis, creative solutions will need to be applied in order to maintain interoperable communications. These can include utilization of a Console Patch, COMLINC or other systems relay links between systems.
September 23, 2011 36
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
1) Establish A Narrowbanding Planning Team The first step of the project should be to establish a Narrowbanding Project Team consisting of designated individuals from each department/agency and the selected radio service provider. This group would be responsible for ensuring that inventory records and equipment capabilities are identified and would also be responsible for performing or delegating the act of logistics (gathering and transporting radios) and recordkeeping. Team members should include representatives of the Augusta County regional political subdivisions with shared systems, i.e. the City of Staunton and the City of Waynesboro, Augusta Medical Center, SARS, etc. Contact should be made with any interoperability organizations to determine the point at which those entities will complete Narrowbanding of any shared radio channels that are used for mutual aid or interoperable communications. This should include organizations such as hospitals, rescue squads, medical air transport, hazmat organizations, the Rockingham/Harrisonburg Radio Cache manager, COMLINC and any other interoperable communications entities that may be affected by the regions Narrowbanding process. • It is important that the selected radio service provider be engaged at the beginning of the planning process. The planning team should also include the radios service provider or contractor that will actually be performing the physical tasks of Narrowbanding work. This will help to ensure that they are capable of responding to the Narrowbanding timeline of the Augusta County regional participants as well as other public safety entities to which they may be committed for Narrowbanding services. The final outcome should be a project schedule and a detailed implementation planning document by which costs and budgetary figures can be established to complete the project prior to the deadline of January 1, 2013. • Detailed preplanning will be the best preventive measure to minimize loss of airtime. Planning should include a “fallback” operational scenario or utilization of alternate communications links should failure of primary systems occur. • Interoperable communications links may be temporarily suspended. Establish points of contact for external state or local interoperable agencies to advise and coordinate the utilization of other means of establishing interoperability links such as a Console Patch or utilization of the COMLINC/RIOS system. These organizations should be included in the contact notifications for notification when interoperability channels and gateways will be temporarily suspended and unavailable during the Narrowbanding process. 2) Develop a Budget The cost of converting a system to the Narrowband mode is dependent upon the attributes of the system inventory. If the radio systems inventory consists mostly of high channel capacity radios, then those units can be pre-programmed with a secondary or duplicate channel template in the narrowband mode therefore allowing the user to cut-over to the new narrowband channels at the designated time. If the base/repeaters stations can be configured in a similar fashion then remote switching to the narrowband channel may be possible therefore cutting down on technician time in the field. The disadvantage to this approach is that the equipment will require a “second
September 23, 2011 37
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
touch” to remove any wideband channels before the January 1, 2013 deadline. Again, the best approach is to immediately begin working with the vendor that will be performing the work to determine all options providing a selective approach to costs reduction. 3) Complete all Narrowbanding licensing requirements including NRQZ authorization A review of FCC licenses for Augusta County, the City of Staunton and the City of Waynesboro indicates that licensing requirements for Narrowbanding readiness have been completed with the exception of Waynesboro, the Augusta Medical Center and the Staunton-Augusta Rescue Squad. A cursory review of all licenses should continue to be performed to ensure that all details including authorization from NRQZ have been completed prior to actual reprogramming. 4) Maintain a complete and detailed inventory assessment
The Augusta County region should ensure that a complete and full radio systems inventory continues to be maintained as the Narrowbanding process proceeds forward. The inventory data should include the make, model, serial number, frequency band, the programming template and channel capacity for all radios that operate between 150 to 512 MHz. The inventory should include all systems operating within this radio spectrum including but not limited to:
• Mobile Radios • Portable Radios • SCADA Systems • Paging Systems • Mobile Data Systems • Fire/Rescue Alerting
Confirm with the radio services provider that all equipment requiring narrowband conversion is capable of being reprogrammed or converted to the narrowband mode. In addition, the radio service provider should be asked to determine if the radio will be able to accommodate the new channels that will be available after Narrowbanding. Some equipment may need to be replaced if it cannot support Narrowbanding reprogramming. Continual inventory analysis should expose non-compliant and problematic radio equipment.
The inventory analysis will be the best guide in determining the scope of work for the Narrowbanding planning.
Early vintage and suspect equipment should be pre-tested to confirm that Narrowbanding can be successfully applied. Some equipment will need to be reprogrammed in place, i.e. fire apparatus, mobile data, fire/alert stations, SCADA stations, fixed equipment, etc. In the planning process the Augusta County Region should utilize subscriber radio channel capacity. If the radio subscriber is capable of containing a full duplicate set of channels in the narrowband mode, those radios can be preprogrammed to be able to allow the end user to switch from wideband to narrowband channels at the time of the base repeater programming. User training will be required to ensure that the user understands how to do this at the time of the Cut-Over. Some Post-Narrowbanding work may be required since the regulations clearly state that all wideband
September 23, 2011 38
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
channels must be removed at the conversion deadline of January 1, 2013. If the radio subscriber unit has limited channel capacity and cannot be pre-configured for the narrowband mode, then those radios will have to be programmed at the point of system cut-over and activated just after the associated base repeater station(s) are configured for narrowband. Appendix D provides a table of systems inventory as provided by the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Communications Project Working Group. The inventory listing illustrates the radio equipment as being compliant, non-compliant or unaffected by Narrowbanding as indicated in the Narrowbanding Compatibility Key at the end of the listing. It was noted that some line items quantities and equipment detail are incomplete further reinforcing the need to ensure the accuracy of the inventory for all equipment engaged in the process. This should include a verification process by the contracted vendor performing the work. 5) Cut-Over Planning Establish specific Cut-Over dates and times for the equipment to be narrowbanded to ensure that the radio service provider can allocate work resources in conjunction with the operational requirements of the regional stakeholders. Identify critical communications channels and the amount of “downtime” expected through the process and if alternate communications needs are required. Include a “fallback” plan or alternate communications path should reprogramming process need to be terminated.
Narrowbanding Cut‐Over Considerations: 1) Establish a target cut-over date on a per-department or per-channel basis 2) Ensure the service provider is available for all work required 3) Have a single point of contact for providing real time information and instructions to those point persons in the field designated as be responsible for switching channels or swapping/programming radios. A Narrowbanding command center may need to be established during the actual cut-over process. 4) Ensure instructions/information are communicated to all field personnel engaged in the radio systems process. 5) Establish a “spare radio” cache for emergencies and to accommodate the possible failure of radios in the field. Consider utilization of the Rockingham/Harrisonburg Radio Cache. 6) Post Narrowbanding a. For radio subscribers with duplicated systems, have them report to the radio service provider to remove any wideband mode channels remaining prior to the January 1, 2013 deadline. b. License modifications to remove wideband emission designators
September 23, 2011 39
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Frequency Bands
Radio frequency waves are the medium over which wireless communications take place. Intelligence can be impressed on radio waves and “carried” over the air by varying their frequency or amplitude. This process is known as modulation. The transmitted signal is demodulated (converted back to its original form) at the receiving end in order to recover the information sent. Radio waves are distinguished by their frequency. An alternate characterization of radio waves can be made by their wavelength, which is inversely related to frequency. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength and the greater ability of the radio signal to travel through space. The basic measurement unit for Radio waves is the Hertz, which is the number of times a radio wave repeats during one second. Because of the extremely high frequencies normally encountered, radio frequency spectrum is usually described in terms of Kilohertz (KHz – thousands of Hertz), Megahertz (MHz – millions of Hertz), and Gigahertz (GHz – billions of Hertz). Wavelength is a measure of the distance that would “contain” one wave if it could be seen. The Private Land-Mobile Radio Services (PLMRS) incorporates a number of different frequency bands for use by both Public Safety and Local Government users. In general, these frequency allocations are designated as follows:
Table 3: Frequency Bands
September 23, 2011 40
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Each frequency band has characteristics which provide benefits to different types of use or environments. These characteristics are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. Where numeric ratings are shown, they reflect an overall ranking among the bands listed, with lower numbers indicating a more favorable attribute, characteristic, or capability.
Table 4: Summary of Frequency Band Characteristics
September 23, 2011 41
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Traditional Coverage Enhancement Techniques
This section describes and compares some of the techniques traditionally used to enhance coverage over wider service areas. Those techniques include receiver voting, transmitter steering, multi-cast, and simulcast architectures.
Receiver Voting Coverage is a primary concern for all users. While it does depend on the frequency band selected, there are methods used to provide wide area coverage or overcome coverage limitations. These limitations are primarily due to lower power transmitters, relatively poor antenna systems and elevations, and locations and environment of the “mobile” users. This is especially true for battery powered portable radio equipment. In order to improve “inbound” communications, systems routinely employ diversity reception and comparator systems. These are sometimes referred to as “satellite receiver” system which can lead to confusion. The term satellite, when used in this context, refers to equipment operated a distance away from primary equipment sites. Receivers are strategically placed throughout the service area, and connected back to a central comparator or “voter.” The comparator compares the quality of the signal from any receiver that is able to pick up the transmission and selects or “votes” for the best one. That best signal is routed to communications centers, and also can be used for retransmission to other users. Placement is such that the receivers are in much closer proximity to users, and also may not be obstructed by terrain or other objects between the user and the distant primary site.
Transmitter Steering In order to improve outbound communications coverage to mobile users, three methods are routinely used. The first, and most simple is to “steer” transmissions to one or more transmitter sites that are strategically placed, but all operating on the same radio frequency. A transmitter in the south portion of the service area may not provide sufficient coverage to the northern area. For those few instances where communications are more critical to an event in the northern area, dispatchers may switch to and activate a different transmitter on the same channel. The north and south transmitters may not be used at the same time, and neither provides adequate coverage to all areas, but through selection and use on a case by case basis, coverage can be improved. Of all alternatives, this is normally the least costly, but also the least capable. It also is more difficult to operate and the most subject to misuse. If multiple transmitters are keyed at the same time, there will likely be self-interference and distortion, even if transmitting the same information. Multiple tone operation can make the system more user-friendly and capable, but proper performance still depends on user knowledge and selection.
Multi‐Cast Similar to transmitter steering is a method called “multi-cast.” This solution allows for the transmission (broadcast) of the same information over multiple frequencies or channels at the same time, without self-interference. As in the scenario above, there may be a north and south transmitter, but they can now both operate at the same time (and provide coverage to the wider area at all times) because they operate on multiple channels, which do not interfere with each other. Multi-cast can be used in a conventional or trunked setting, but the method might require
September 23, 2011 42
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
some intervention or selection. The advantage of multi-cast is that it provides coverage over the wider area without the requirement for expensive frequency and timing references or highly stable interconnecting network. The disadvantage is that it is not as “spectrally efficient” because it requires one frequency or frequency pair for each operational channel at each required site. Multi-cast is not expected to be a viable alternative for a consolidated system, because each site would require its own unique set of channels, and most communications are common across the service area for a given user. Depending on use, the multi-cast system can be used to segregate traffic so that transmissions are only made in areas where necessary, allowing some increase in traffic capacity with wide area systems. Multi-cast is often employed in wide area, low traffic sites.
Simulcast More spectrally efficient is the simulcast configuration. This solution broadcasts the same information over the same frequency (channel) from all sites in the system (or “cell”). In areas where only one site provides coverage, there is no difference in the reception. In areas where more than one site can provide an adequate coverage, but the signal from one more proximate site is much stronger than the rest, there is little or no interference and the strongest signal “captures” the receiver. In areas of significant coverage overlap (where the signal from two or more sites can be received, and there is little or no difference in their strength), the transmitters must be capable of performing to very tight tolerances in operating frequency, frequency deviation, output power, and absolute phase delay of the information to be transmitted. Selection of sites and antenna systems is often a trade off to control the locations where this overlap occurs. There are often minimum and maximum desirable distances between simulcast sites to minimize overlap and the possible differences in delay to receivers between adjacent sites. To properly implement simulcast, the first step is to adjust output power and antenna patterns of individual sites to place those overlap areas such that they occur in locations of relatively lower importance or activity, or completely outside of the primary service area. The second step is to minimize the amount of distortion in those overlap areas by tightly controlling the arrival and amplitude of information to be transmitted. The transmitted signals must be of the same exact carrier frequency, they must deviate from that carrier frequency to the same extent, and they must be delayed relative to each other such that they arrive at the overlap area at exactly the same moment. The higher performance and stability requirements result in additional equipment, and transmitters with better performance and higher stability. That equipment is more expensive to manufacture, install, set up and maintain. However, the use of simulcast technologies greatly reduces the number of frequencies needed for a system. As an example a 10 site 15 channel simulcast system requires 15 channels, of which 14 could be usable in a trunked system (described later). In a multi-cast system, 150 channels would be needed, of which 140 would be available for use in the same type of trunked system. Where communications systems cover several regions, there can be several simulcast “cells” with each operating on its’ own set of channels. In a scenario where the Augusta region might
September 23, 2011 43
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
operate simulcast sites off of a system from an adjoining political subdivision, the Augusta system would appear to adjoining system as a single site. Each simulcast system has at least one cell, and each cell will typically have a “prime site” which handles the control of transmitters and distribution of signals. Each prime site will have one or more other “sub-sites” in the cell which operate on the same channels but are subservient to and depend on connection with the prime site. For the Augusta Regional System, a combination of simulcast transmission for outbound transmissions and diversity reception for inbound transmissions are recommended to achieve coverage over the primary service area. Digital Operation
There is significant movement towards the adoption of digital technology for wireless communications systems. This section is intended to provide a basic understanding of the differences between the familiar analog systems and newer digital radio technologies. Analog, frequency modulated (FM) systems are the norm for most public safety agencies and have been for more than 50 years, but many are migrating toward digital operation. Digital technologies can provide some improvement in performance -- especially as users move to narrower bandwidth channels -- but they are not without limitations. Early digital systems were proprietary, and many technologies remain so. The methods and processes in use for the conversion of voice communications to digital signals can also suffer in environments of high background noise as regularly encountered by public safety responders. Project 25 (P-25) was initiated by APCO in the late 1980’s to obtain the best performance and overcome the incompatibilities found in digital systems then being developed and offered by equipment manufacturers. Improvements are being made in “vocoder” performance, and the P-25 standard is maturing, but such standards are ever evolving to keep up with technical advances and regulatory changes. An example is the change needed to provide greater spectral efficiency and meet the next expected step in narrowband compliance. Many grant programs at the State and Federal level require that any funded equipment “be capable of P-25 operation.” Radios may be capable of such operations but not equipped. The mere inclusion of P-25 capabilities and standards does not automatically address other aspects that can still prevent or limit interoperability, such as differing frequency bands. There also are limitations in equipment availability. While most subscriber radios are capable of digital or analog operation, it is common for recent fixed infrastructure offerings to operate only in an analog or digital mode -- not both. Tone and voice pagers commonly used by fire departments, rescue squads, and other emergency service agencies are “analog only” devices. They also are not available in some frequency bands or for use on a trunked system. The desire of users to monitor ongoing dispatch communications as they respond requires the use of an analog channel, or two channels (one trunked and/or digital for the dispatch communications, and one analog to allow monitoring by analog pagers). For these reasons, it is recommended that emergency service dispatch communications should be
September 23, 2011 44
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
either analog or that they be permanently “patched” to an analog channel to support paging operations. One fallacy of digital modulation is that the audio quality is superior to comparable analog systems. While the audio quality is good, it can be distinguished by a distinct, crisp mechanical tone when compared to analog signals. Digital audio clarity does not necessarily provide better fidelity, but it does provide for more consistent quality and static free reception throughout the entire coverage area. In a digital system, the signals are encoded in such a way that minor errors in the received signal can be detected, and usually corrected. The audio quality remains clear as the receiver moves away from the transmitter, and users do not hear the “white noise” or static and popping normally associated with analog transmissions as they slowly diminish. Only when the RF signal strength becomes weak enough for errors to become excessive does the audio quality begin to deteriorate. The point where communications fail is when the received signal has an error rate of between two and five percent or more. When the radio unit is at this point, the loss of reception is more abrupt and often unanticipated when compared to an analog system. There are also additional “processing” delays for the conversion to and from digital operation (voice coding, or “vocoding”) and error detection and correction. When errors occur within the capability of the radio to correct them, the signal can remain clear, but is further delayed by the error correction. These delays are often imperceptible unless users are in close proximity to one another. Because some users are annoyed by the surprise loss of reception, their systems can be configured so that the errors are passed through the system, resulting in “robotic” sounds, echoes, repeated syllables, tones and other “artifacts” when the receiver reaches the limit of its ability to correct all errors. These are similar to their analog noise counterparts. Because the voice has been digitized, small quantities of signaling can be regularly added and embedded into the signal before transmission, and extracted after reception and used to provide continuous updates on unit identification, emergency status, user group membership, selective signaling, available services, and adjacent transmitter sites. The embedded signaling services mentioned above are different than traditional mobile data services. Once the system is inherently Digital it can support data services in a native mode over the same channels used for digitized voice. To the radio, both data and voice are digital signals, so they can be handled similarly. As described later, this lends itself to the sharing of base stations between voice and data users. In a digital voice system, digitization of the voice message makes it incomprehensible to users listening on analog radios or scanners. The communications are not highly secure, but simply sound like data passing between two computers (a whining, growling, or rumbling sound) unless decoded with compatible equipment. The transmitted signals can be further encrypted if necessary using an encryption algorithm and secret “keys.” The channels and thus the system can use separate keys for each user group as well. Unlike an analog system, encryption of a digital system has no impact on voice quality or range.
September 23, 2011 45
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
There are also disadvantages to digital operation, which must be considered. In an analog system there are no real differences or incompatibilities between systems using similar methods of modulation beyond their bandwidth of operation. However, because there are many possible methods to digitally code voice signals, there are many potential incompatibilities between digital systems. There are voluntary industry standards for digital systems, but not all systems adhere to them. Even for the manufacturers that do provide “standards-based” products, they often offer variations on the standard and incompatible proprietary technologies as well. As a result, absent special efforts and coordination, there is no guarantee or reasonable expectation that digital radios procured by adjacent jurisdictions will be able to communicate with each other directly when in these digital modes. Fortunately, the public safety market demands that all digital subscriber radios be capable of backward compatibility. This means that they will always be able to operate in the standard FM analog mode. Another disadvantage of digital operation is cost. Digital equipment carries a significant cost increase as compared to analog equipment, typically about 30%. It is commonly thought that the narrowband requirements also require conversion to digital operation, but they do not. For any continued operation on UHF, analog operations are more open and inexpensive, and can fully comply with the narrowband requirements but will likely require system changes (additional sites) to overcome performance losses. Trunked Radio Systems
There are two modes of operation that are commonly found in use by public safety land mobile radio systems: conventional; and trunking. In conventional (non-trunked) radio systems, each radio channel is really a separate, independent radio system (set of dedicated base stations or repeaters operating on a single channel at a time, and their associated antenna systems). All of the public safety radio systems in use today within Augusta, Staunton and Waynesboro are conventional land mobile radio systems. The very nature of conventional communications has for many years hindered the efficient use of frequencies and has limited interoperability among public safety users. Advanced technologies can offset the rapidly diminishing availability of frequencies and the need for better interoperability among public safety agencies by more efficient and flexible utilization of the underlying resources. We have, however, based on discussions in and as part of the consensus decision process recommend that conversion to a radio system using trunking technology would be better considered as a logical long term goal in the development of trunked regional interoperable radio communications system for the Augusta Region. This would afford regional participants the ability to further evaluate future system user needs, potential enhancements, improved system capacity and access and the costs and benefits of sharing a common radio system infrastructure that may be served by the system. The negative influence of “shared channel operation” is reduced or eliminated, but users can communicate directly with other responding partners when desired and authorized.
September 23, 2011 46
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
For background, understanding and future consideration the characteristics of trunked communications are described in the following paragraphs. In the context of this report, trunking is the sharing of a relatively small number of common radio channels (trunks) amongst a large population of disparate user groups such that the spectrum is efficiently utilized and advanced features are provided. Telephone companies have been using trunking techniques virtually since their inception. It would be impractical and cost-prohibitive to attempt to install and use a dedicated telephone line between each possible pair of users or for each group. When a telephone caller initiates a call, they are automatically assigned a non-dedicated pathway (trunk) to the desired party for the duration of that call. Once the user hangs up, that same trunk is released and becomes available to other users. It is highly unlikely that all users want to call at exactly the same time, so a small number of trunks can be shared with little or no inconvenience or waiting. Since the trunks are shared, it is also unnecessary to add more trunks for relatively small increases in users or traffic volume. The sharing of channels or trunks is managed efficiently and automatically by the switching equipment located in the Telephone Company’s Central Office. Additional trunks are added only as needed to maintain a reasonable “grade of service.” Since the late 1970’s, trunking techniques have been successfully applied to land mobile radio dispatch communications systems. A trunked radio system consists of a common pool of radio channels that are automatically assigned to field personnel by a computer. Normally, all users of the trunked radio system have access to all frequencies in the common pool. No channels are assigned exclusively to any user or agency. The trunked system incorporates intelligent radios with microprocessors that communicate with a central controller, which automatically selects and assigns an available channel and notifies all similar users. As long as there is one available channel in the pool, communications can take place. Channel assignments are transparent to the field users, who cannot tell that they do not have their own channel. These “virtual channels” are commonly referred to as “Talk Groups.” Since the probability that all user groups would want to communicate at the exact same instant is low, great efficiencies can be achieved. For most trunked radio system technologies, one channel is set aside for coordination and control. All radios not actively participating in a call switch to and “listen” on this “control channel” for commands and assignment from the central controlling computer. Requests for channels are also made to the controlling computer over this channel. Individual exchanges are very brief, but the typical control channel continuously transmits status information so that units may positively locate and “home” on their own system, and join any communications already in progress. The loss of this channel for voice communications is more than offset by the improved access and capability provided, especially in larger systems. If properly designed and implemented, a trunked radio system can solve many of the two-way radio communications problems that are likely to be experienced by the users. Improvements can be expected in the following areas:
Reduced Channel Congestion One of the main advantages of a trunked radio system is its ability to support more radios per channel and provide faster system access time than conventional systems equipped with a similar
September 23, 2011 47
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
number of channels. Trunked system technology allows for the incremental growth and expansion of the system, as the users’ needs increase. A single site trunked radio system can handle in excess of 20 radio channels and can support thousands of users. A trunked radio system can generally provide fewer instances and shorter durations of waiting time because field personnel have access to a large pool of radio channels rather than only one or two dedicated or shared channels typically found in a conventional system. Trunked technologies allow the establishment of “virtual channels” called talk groups, which organize users so that they do not routinely hear other unrelated or incompatible use. But when needed, users can move to common talk groups that have been established primarily to improve interoperability during mutual responses. While there are limits to the number of talk groups available, they far exceed the number of channels that could otherwise be used. All agencies served by the trunked radio system would have access to the larger number of channels in the common pool. Under normal day-to-day operations, where radio channels are available for assignment, a trunked radio system will process requests for channels on a first-in, first-out basis. This means that channels will be assigned to field users in the order that the channels are requested. Channels are assigned typically in less than one-half of a second. The addition of a new user group does not necessarily require the addition of channels (frequencies), since talk groups are virtual channels. The trunked system is configured for additional talk groups, and the associated subscriber radios are programmed similarly to provide talk group access. No new radio channels are required, and users are not subjected to (or aware of) each others’ activities.
Priority Access In the event that the system is extremely busy, it is possible for all channels to be assigned and in use at any given moment in time, and for none to be immediately available. Any additional request for channels will be made on the control channel and added to a waiting list (queue) until the next available channel can be assigned. The concept of user priority only applies to users that may find themselves waiting in a queue for a channel assignment. The trunked radio systems developed by the major suppliers all provide multiple levels of user priority. In practice, most systems are implemented using only three levels of priority (non-public safety user, public safety user, and emergency call). Generally, public safety agencies are assigned a higher priority level than public service agencies. Under conditions when all repeater channels are in use, higher priority calls are placed in the queue ahead of lower priority calls and are served first. If two calls of equal priority are received when the system is busy, they will be handled on a first-in, first-out basis. If a call is from a recent user -- someone who has already been involved in a recent conversation -- it will receive a higher priority level than a new call. The recent user priority improves the continuity of ongoing communications when the system is busy. Some trunked systems can be configured so that priority calls can “pre-empt” ongoing calls of lesser priority, but this is not popular or advisable. Without the “ruthless pre-emption” capability, channels will not be reassigned to the priority user until the end of the ongoing transmission. This is considered acceptable because most transmissions last only a few seconds, and the
September 23, 2011 48
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
longest delay should not last more than the average transmission time. Since there is an ongoing transmission on each available channel, any channel released will immediately be assigned to the highest priority request. The handling of queued calls reinforces the importance of properly designing the system to handle the number of users and the busy hour call volumes. A trunked radio system is usually equipped with enough radio channels to minimize and, to the greatest extent possible, eliminate the occurrence of system “busies”. In a properly designed system every user will effectively enjoy the same level of access and priority. The typical design goal is for there to be a chance of about one in one hundred or less, that a user would not find at least one channel available for immediate assignment at any time during the busiest hour of the day.
Interoperability Interoperability is described earlier in this document. A properly designed and implemented trunked radio system can vastly improve the technological hurdles to interoperability. It allows for the establishment of special talk groups that can be used for mutual responses, while not requiring additional dedicated radio frequencies. It is emphasized here that trunked systems do not result in interoperability – they simply support and facilitate it.
Management and Administration Since a trunked radio system is a computer controlled network, the assignment of voice traffic by the system can be stored and analyzed to determine the current communications loading on the system. Since each radio on the system is assigned a unique ID (Subscriber Unit ID Number), the system can log airtime used by each user, by agency, or by jurisdiction, if desired. This capability allows the system to produce management reports which show how busy the system has been, is now, and is likely to be in the future. Furthermore, it can show how much of the system’s capacity each agency is actually using. This capability can be utilized to allocate costs back to various agencies in a cost sharing arrangement, if desired. A trunked system automatically recognizes each individual radio, so management functions can extend to that level. Radios can be granted access to the system or certain features, capabilities, coverage areas, or even certain channels. The trunked system can provide to other properly equipped users, the name or unit number of the radio user currently transmitting. This unit ID feature allows others to know who is transmitting, even if they are unable to speak. Unit ID also helps eliminate inappropriate use of the radio system since there is little question about the source of transmissions. Trunked system administration also allows for enhanced control of users. Lost radios can be effectively disabled so that they do not receive and cannot interfere with critical communications. Radios can be restricted from accessing certain talk groups, features, or coverage areas. Similarly, if the need arises, groups that are normally separate and independent can be “dynamically regrouped” so that they are pulled together and can communicate during special situations or responses.
Emergency Alerts and Calls
September 23, 2011 49
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Trunked radios can also incorporate an “emergency button” that sends an emergency alert to the communications center and other units, when depressed. The emergency message is sent by a radio until it is acknowledged by the system, ensuring that the message was properly received. Although it does not inherently identify the location of the individual user, it does identify the individual by unit ID and assures that person of immediately getting the next available channel. There is also an optional (“hot–mic”) capability so that a radio transmits for up to 30 seconds and opens its microphone to provide a silent alarm when it is placed in the emergency mode. Even if the system is busy and no voice channel is immediately available, the emergency alert (which takes place on the control channel) can still be processed. In 1978, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) recognized that trunking technology was on the horizon and set out to develop a list of standard functional requirements for public safety trunked radio systems. This became known as the APCO 16 Guidelines for trunked radio systems, and is still commonly used as the baseline for communications capabilities of trunked radio systems. The following list summarizes these guidelines:
• Rapid channel access (500ms or less) • Interference free channels and simple operation • Efficient system design, no channel blockage • Common radio infrastructure with capacity to support multiple departments/agencies • Interoperability between departments/agencies • Dynamic regrouping of units to special talk groups • Central network control and system redundancy • Emergency access with five priority levels for system access • Unit ID on all transmissions • Private and secure radio calls • Telephone Interconnect • Voice encryption Similar to the issue with digital communications (discussed earlier), there are many versions, protocols, and variations in trunking technologies. Some are considered proprietary. Others are considered open or inexpensive and available from multiple sources, but they are not capable of providing “public safety grade” service. That is, they inherently lack some capability that ensures proper operation under all circumstances for users in life-safety situations. For instance, they may result in missed calls, lack of priority access, and no ability to queue waiting callers when the system is completely busy. The system may have no ability to handle emergency calls, authenticate users, or control system access. The systems may also lack an adequate approach to ensure that critical users are served during partial or total system failures. Finally, some are susceptible to overload, or have inadequate capabilities to serve large numbers of subscribers, groups, or traffic volume.
September 23, 2011 50
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
While there are multiple vendors that offer trunked systems, the adherence to public safety standards, features, reliability, and service and the use of advanced technologies limit the availability of practical sources for equipment. Even in the case where vendors claim open systems and compatibility with industry standards, it is not uncommon to find subsets or supersets of capability. For instance, a vendor may provide basic compatibility with an industry standard, but may not provide all capabilities available in, and desired from the standard (optional features of the standard). Alternatively, the same vendor may provide certain features or capabilities that are desirable to users, but outside of the scope of the standard, and may be implemented in a non standard, incompatible, or proprietary manner. Whether or not the concerns above are fully addressed, many of the trunked system technologies currently available result in incompatibilities with equipment not only from other manufacturers, but also from alternative offerings from the same manufacturer. For such a large investment, this requires considerable effort to ensure that the long term relationship between equipment vendor(s) and users is mutually beneficial, that equipment sources are not artificially limited or prices inflated, and that maintenance service is available to ensure continued operation of this critical support system. Failure to address these factors in advance may result in a foreshortened life cycle, escalating costs, poor relationships with vendors; external influences to what should be internal decisions, and loss of control, destiny and autonomy for users. The capabilities of a properly designed and implemented trunked system are certainly beneficial to public safety users, but such decisions should not be made lightly. Trunking should be a long term technology goal for the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Working Group and Users because of its ability to permit all users to share a common system, obtain a higher degree of spectrum efficiency, and provide advanced user features and interoperability when desired for local emergencies and disasters, but separate communications for normal daily operations. Mobile Data Systems
Mobile data systems are becoming more commonplace and may be integrated into and act as part of land mobile voice radio systems, especially where the voice channels are digital. Alternatively, they may be standalone and dedicated to data services. Integrated systems avoid some of the costs for infrastructure equipment and spectrum resources, but they typically provide basic, relatively low-speed service of 9600 bits per second or less. Private systems with higher capacity tend to be dedicated to the purpose. The development of reliable, high speed data systems is not cost effective except where licensees have a very large user base, and the need for these services. While public systems may not necessarily be built to public safety expectations or provide priority access for public safety users, they can provide more universal service at higher data rates and economical costs without significant investment in infrastructure. Since voice systems require a relatively low data speed, the higher speed versions of private mobile data are not typically integrated into voice systems (they are dedicated to data only). More often than not the high speed systems use an adaptive scheme where they might provide relatively high speed mobile data (maximum 96 kbps), but only for the best of circumstances and
September 23, 2011 51
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
conditions. Performance in general is typically much less. Data rates and performance may be very good while sitting in the parking lot at the beginning of a shift, but rates may scale back and provide reliable service at much slower rates when users travel beyond the immediate vicinity of fixed infrastructure. The benefit of integrating data services with voice is that (assuming that the coverage requirement is met) equipment is not "dedicated" to either system or purpose. The improvement in grade of service (quick access/minimal delays) provided by one or two additional channels can be significant. There are benefits in the cost savings from shared use, an expected improvement in access for voice users, and the provision of basic mobile data capability. These basic integrated mobile data systems should not be expected to provide, and are not suitable to serve low latency, high speed access, as would be required for streaming video, web access, or even graphic data or images. They are suited to uses such as short messaging, automatic vehicle location, operator or vehicle license queries, and silent dispatch services. "Integration" of data services at the network (infrastructure) level should not be confused with and should not obscure the need for dedicated equipment at the "subscriber end.” It can become very problematic from the end users’ perspective when subscriber equipment attempts to serve a dual role. Data (which can be delayed) is typically given a lower priority than voice (which shouldn't be delayed). Data services can also be pre-empted “mid stream”, and held for later retransmission. If the users' same subscriber radio tries to serve both purposes, then data can suffer significant delays. Timeouts can occur causing unreliable operation and poor throughput. As an example, the infrastructure could have six channels idle, but a "user" radio could be receiving a lengthy dispatch message with directions, that lasts for 20-30 seconds. The data is delayed. Also, if the user wants to send data, it will be held up until that same "voice traffic" ceases (just as the user would be expected to wait before talking). Separate subscriber radios can offset and avoid some of those delays and improve operation. Microwave Transport System
Telephone lines have been proven to be unreliable and at times not even available at some sites or locations. Specifications for leased telephone lines allow for both short and long term variations in performance for frequency response and delay. These variations are commonplace with leased lines and do not affect simple voice communications, but can make the circuits undesirable, if not completely unsuitable for simulcast operation. It is recommended that a consolidated Augusta regional radio system (Conceptual UHF Simulcast Non-Trunked) should be served by a loop microwave system to the extent possible by available site configuration which would be a more economical and practical approach for connecting the stations and sites together. It may be possible to provide other services over the same system, if designed and implemented with those required capacities and points of presence fully defined. Examples would be backup trunks, data links for CAD systems, metropolitan area networking, telephone extensions and “ring down” circuits.
September 23, 2011 52
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Current technologies allow a mixture of time domain multiplex (TDM) circuit switched technology with packet based IP networks. In a traditional TDM architecture, it would be typical to dedicate at least two DS-1 circuits to each of the remote sites, along with other connectivity to central or prime site equipment as required. If the system were to consist of ten remote locations then the transport would probably need to be sized for DS-3 capacity which would provide two DS-1 circuits per site along with about eight additional circuits for other services and connections. For an IP based network, the equivalent capacity would be approximately 50 Mbps. As the microwave transport would be critical to the proper operation of the entire system, it should be designed for an annual two-way reliability of 99.9995% for each link. If a ring configuration is not possible, any spur or “open” loops should be equipped for monitored hot-standby operation. If IP, rather than TDM methods are used, then jitter and latency through the system must also be well controlled in order to support simulcast operations. Greater capacities may be desired if other services or functions are identified. With the wider bandwidths required for the greater capacities comes increased performance requirements. These performance requirements can lead to some combination of larger antennas, shorter microwave “hops”, different operating bands, and even additional sites. Distributed Antenna Systems (In‐Building Coverage)
No communications system design will ever provide a certainty of communications to all users in all areas at all times. In order to keep them to a reasonable form factor, weight, and size, personally carried portable radios lack the power, antenna efficiencies, and selectivity of their mobile or fixed counterparts. Portable radios are typically worn at waist level on a belt clip, close to the user’s body, which also compounds the poor performance already experienced. Aside from the factors above which make portable radios the weakest link in the system, their use also allows personnel mobility and continued communications inside of buildings to areas where service was not previously a consideration. For all of these reasons, modern communications systems should be designed for, or at least consider “in-building” portable coverage performance. However, building construction materials and methods hamper the passage of radio signals. The extent of this “building attenuation” depends on the type of construction materials, the size of the structure, the density of construction, the extent of above or below-ground construction, the existence, quantity and dimensions of openings and apertures throughout the building structure, and the frequency of operation. This building attenuation can easily exceed 20 deciBels (dB) for larger buildings, which means that one percent or less of the signal power immediately outside of the building is available inside of the structure. Improved coverage can be obtained by adding additional sites to reduce the distance from portable users, but that increases the inventory and complexity of system equipment, which also increases the cost of procurement, ongoing operations and maintenance. There is a diminishing return for each site added to the system and an increase in overlap areas of simulcast systems where distortion can occur.
September 23, 2011 53
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
If the frequency band organization allows, it is often more cost effective to address “in-building” coverage deficiencies with distributed antenna systems for specific locations as needed, rather than “over building” the number of radio sites. Distributed antenna systems can be passive (non- amplified) or active (amplified). Active distributed antenna systems can take the form of signal boosters that enhance communications that are in-bound, out-bound, or in both directions. The most common configuration employed boosts signals in both directions, so they are often referred to as bi-directional amplifiers (BDAs). When amplifying signals in both directions, additional care must be taken to ensure that inbound and outbound signals can be separated by filters, and that proper isolation is achieved to prevent “self interference.” BDAs for VHF systems tend to be custom solutions and are difficult to design and implement because of the lack of a well defined band plan. Transmit and receive frequencies are intermingled throughout the band. A single channel may be easily implemented, because there are only two frequencies involved. As the number of channels served increases, it becomes more difficult to identify sufficient frequencies where a conflict doesn’t exist between “inbound” and “outbound” frequencies. There is a point where the filtering requirement becomes too complex for implementation, because one or more undesirable frequencies cannot effectively be filtered out without adversely affecting other desired frequencies nearby. These problems can sometimes be addressed and overcome by a complete reorganization of the frequency plan, but this also becomes difficult to implement on an active system. BDAs are somewhat easier to implement for UHF than at high band VHF, but still have their limitations. Within the 450-470 MHz band normally used, there are two sub-bands, as shown in the diagram below. Fixed transmitters are found between 450 and 455 MHz, and between 460 and 465 MHz. Their respective receive frequencies (mobile transmit) are in the immediately adjacent sub-bands of 455-460 MHz and 465-470 MHz. Filters typically are able to pass a bandwidth of approximately two MHz within one of these sub-bands, while filtering out the associated frequencies located 3-5 MHz away. It is not possible to cover the entire band with a single filter set as neither the fixed nor the mobile frequencies are contiguous, and the incompatible fixed and mobile uses (which must be filtered out) are still immediately adjacent to each other. Again, as the number of channels increases in a system design, the more difficult it becomes to constrain them to one portion of the band.
September 23, 2011 54
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Channel Pair Channel Pair
Fixed Mobile Fixed Mobile 450 MHz 455 MHz 460 MHz 465 MHz 470 MHz
Figure 3: UHF Channel Pairing
The optimal bands for using BDAs for in-building solutions are the 700 and 800 MHz bands. In each of these bands, all fixed channels are grouped together and separated from other mobile channels with a much wider spacing. This simplifies filtering and access to the entire band. Additionally, the mobile frequencies for the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands are adjacent to each other, making it possible to consider all mobile transmit frequencies as being in one sub-band.
September 23, 2011 55
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Operational Requirements
How quickly and effectively public safety agencies respond to citizen’s needs is dependent, to a large degree, on the underlying communications systems, which support their operations. Increasing demand for public safety services, growing requirements for multi-agency responses and increasingly specialized services establish the need for enhanced public safety radio capabilities. Communications System Requirements Reliability – The mission critical nature of law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical services, and critical infrastructure facilities require reliable two-way voice communications, which are engineered and maintained to ensure uninterrupted service. These communications systems provide the lifelines to back-up assistance during emergencies. Efficient operation, high availability, and timely restoration of critical services are key design criteria. Interoperability – Complexity, size and frequency of emergency events are raising the requirements for coordinated multi-agency responses. The ability of responding agencies to communicate with each other is critical to the successful completion of the response. Interoperability is, therefore, fundamental to a coordinated efficient response to complex emergency situations. Improved Coverage – Although the primary service area is well-defined and understood, there are still challenges to providing ubiquitous radio coverage. A number of coverage problem areas or “dead spots” were reported by users and have been identified in this report. Any new or improved communications system should address these concerns and strive to provide improved and more consistent radio coverage throughout the service area and adjacent localities to support public safety and operational support efforts. Increased Traffic Capacity- No reports suggested that current channel capacity was insufficient. However, it is anticipated that with consolidation of communications and future growth, additional capacity will likely be required at some point in time in the future. Part of that capacity is needed to isolate the communications center from routine tactical communications of multiple departments that are not directly related to their mission. It would be possible to sequence the migration to a regional simulcast system within the same band such that operations are minimally impacted, and safety is not compromised. Increased channel capacity without the application of trunked technology could possibly increase the complexity of operation. In-Building Coverage – The mission critical nature of public safety responses requires more personal levels of communication. The amount of work of public safety departments that occurs within buildings and in other places not accessible by vehicle can vary from political subdivision to political subdivision. Depending on the level, additional radio system coverage may be necessary to support portable radio operation from those locations. Based on responses received in building coverage requirements in the Augusta region could account for 25 to 45 percent that users may routinely operate in this type of environment. Distributed antenna systems can be used
September 23, 2011 56
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
to address specific deficiencies in isolated locations, but may be cost effective only if all channels served are converted to a “single band” operation where channel organization lends itself to their use. Improved Redundancy in Communication Systems – The existing communication systems have varying back-up capabilities as normally provided for public safety operations. Alternate channels or systems are sometimes available at other locations, and there are some backup systems with lesser capabilities. A catastrophic failure of one communication system (at a single site location) would severely limit the affected agency’s ability to communicate. Any new or enhanced communications system design should provide an appropriate level of redundancy to ensure continued effective communication links for all users, even during partial system failures. Monitoring and Control Systems – In order for the redundancy to be effective, monitoring and control systems should where practical be implemented. If a redundant system element fails while not in service, the failure could go unnoticed and not realized until a failure of the primary system and loss of service. Likewise, if a primary system fails and the redundant system becomes active, users may not notice the switch (the system still works, as designed). System status must constantly be monitored, and any failure reported immediately so that it can be corrected and the system reliability and availability maintained. Operational Separation – Public Safety organizations use multiple channels which have designated use or provide coverage to specific areas. Non-public safety departments generally have a more limited channel selection and less critical coverage requirements. As the demands for service and coverage have increased over the years, these radio systems have evolved to address specific concerns or needs. Justification for the addition of radio communication channels based on subscriber inventory is unlikely for some agencies, but partitioning of the existing user groups could work to improve efficiency and effectiveness of communications. Comparison of Coverage Performance
This section describes a comparison of similar systems at UHF and 800 MHz. Since performance at 700 MHz would be very similar to that at 800 MHz a single map was created for review in addition to the other coverage propagation (prediction) comparison maps contained in Appendix A. As discussed in other sections, different bands provide varying performance. Higher frequency bands afford more efficient antenna systems, improved penetration of open buildings and they are less susceptible to noise, but they also suffer greater attenuation through space and from foliage loss. Lower frequencies travel better beyond the horizon, but because of their shorter wavelength, higher frequencies reflect off of smaller surfaces more effectively, making them preferable in areas of dense construction. In order to compare coverage prediction performance a basic system design and site constellation was developed using ComSite Design® software for comparison of similar systems at UHF and 800 MHz using current County and City sites that reflect system parameters identified on current FCC licenses in conjunction with technical documentation, parameters and conditions required by the NRAO. Where applicable, existing, State recommended and RCC recommended antenna models using similar levels of transmit power and antenna height were used. Transmit antenna gains were based on antenna models used in each band.
September 23, 2011 57
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
For simplicity in presentation and comparison, a single map was created for each UHF Wide- band (25 kHz) & Narrowband (12.5 kHz) - Talk-Out & Talk-In combined mobile and portable coverage prediction comparison. A description of each map and resulting coverage composite percentage is listed in the table below and the maps are referenced in Appendix A.
Table 5: Systems Projected Coverage
September 23, 2011 58
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Two color-coded contours were represented. Mobile coverage represents the basic level and an outbound (“Talk Out” level of -106.0 dBm). Portable coverage reflects an additional margin of 17.2 dB to represent the antenna and power differences in a portable radio (-88.8 dBm). Additional margins to reflect portable coverage inside of normal and more heavily constructed buildings were not included in these comparison but are referenced as a point of information that the region may wish to evaluate in future planning and evaluation with your long term radio system goals. As a point of reference and comparison, the signal level for adequate coverage for portable performance inside of heavier constructed buildings requires a signal almost 7,100 times more powerful than that needed for mobile service in the same general location. It can be concluded that in order to obtain reliable communications throughout the region’s service area, at least seven sites are anticipated regardless of the frequency band selected.
September 23, 2011 59
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
SPECTRUM AVAILABILITY One of the primary considerations in the selection of a frequency band is the availability of spectrum to create the number of channels needed. As a general rule of thumb, the FCC considers a channel to be fully utilized if it serves 70 units for conventional systems, or 100 users for trunked systems. An assumption based on data provided indicated there were approximately a minimum of 1200 subscriber units estimated needing to be supported in a regional consolidated system including some projection of increase. In addition to the regions current UHF (450-470 MHz) licensed frequencies a brief description has been included in this section regarding frequency bands in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz to provide some additional background pertaining to this particular spectrum and its potential availability for the region should circumstances develop in the future that may necessitate the need to evaluate other spectrum and its availability as part of your future planning. This is also in recognition that radio spectrum is a finite resource and that a time may come where continuing to operate in the current frequency band may no longer be possible or feasible. UHF (450‐470 MHz)
RCC reviewed the FCC license database for licensees in Augusta County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro and found approximately 22 channels that had potential for consideration and use in a consolidated regional system. This quantity did not include any other frequencies that were licensed to any of the political subdivisions that were from the Industrial/Business Pool, MED channels or other channels licensed to Augusta Medical Center and SARS. As described earlier a quantity of at least 15 to 16 channels was selected based on current license information, potential frequency use as well as reduction in availability of some of Staunton’s licensed UHF frequencies due to the planned participation of only the Staunton Fire Department in the proposed regional system at this time. Recognizing that potential use of UHF frequencies currently licensed to the Cities in the regional system have been previously coordinated only for operation from tower structures located within their own jurisdiction a very preliminary frequency coordination search was initiated by RCC to ascertain where other licensed systems utilizing the same frequencies that are licensed to the Staunton Fire Department and Waynesboro may be operating within a 70 mile or 35 mile radius of the Elliotts Knob, Devils Knob and Massanutten Peak sites. The purpose of this search was to identify the potential of any Co-Channel or Adjacent Channel interference issues that may be a factor in the use of these frequencies at those sites. A search was performed using the coordinates of each of these respective sites. Co-Channel and Adjacent Channel reuse is normally based on geographical separation or on propagation analysis. This preliminary search revealed that of the eleven (11) frequencies reviewed for use between the three sites that approximately eight (8) of them have potential Co-Channel (less than 70 miles) or Adjacent Channel (less than 35 miles) separation conflicts between these sites and another transmitter licensed to operate on the same frequency(s). Generally, these types of separation issues are not as great a challenge to overcome from a licensing perspective when the proposed frequencies are being used in a non-trunked simulcast system compared to when being
September 23, 2011 60
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
used in a trunked simulcast system. In the non-trunked system, evaluation of transmitter separation and interference issues are usually performed and determined by the Frequency Coordinator through the review process of the license application as they have a greater degree of flexibility in evaluating and ultimately assessing the levels of interference with this type of system operation than the simulcast trunked system potentially resulting in a more favorable outcome. This will not be the same case when it comes time to review and evaluate these same frequencies for use in a simulcast trunked radio system as the requirements and evaluation for separation of transmitters, interference and engineering standards are more stringent because of the operation and functionality of a trunked simulcast system. This is important to remember as the region continues to review and evaluate its long term radio communication goals and plans. Especially, for operation in a trunked system as the current pool of licensed UHF frequencies will be more limited because of the less than required distances for separation between transmitters. This is not to say that approval for the use of some frequencies may not be possible. An example would be in the case of a Co-Channel frequency where the other licensed transmitter is separated by less than 70 miles but the separation is greater than 55 miles. In this situation the region could attempt to work with the other licensee and obtain concurrence based on the regions assurance that if they are the cause of any interference with the affected transmitter they will take action to correct the cause. Should the licensee not wish to agree to this arrangement then the region could still submit an application for the affected frequency without concurrence from the licensee based on what is referred to as short spacing engineering and then let the FCC determine approval or disapproval. However, should the separation be less than 55 miles than concurrence by the Co-Channel licensee is a must. Without the necessary concurrence the application will not be processed and will be returned to the applicant. The frequencies that were reviewed are presented here:
Table 6: Preliminary Frequency List for Regional Simulcast Applications
Although the preliminary search was performed using the sites referenced, final analysis and frequency coordination must be based upon actual proposed locations and operating parameters. FCC rules lay out the requirement for establishing or converting to trunked system operation
September 23, 2011 61
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
below 512 MHz in §47CFR90.187. In that section, the Commission sets out requirements for notification of co-channel licensees, as well as channel loading. 800 MHz
In the 800 MHz band, public safety agencies that have previously been licensed had the option of operating on frequencies from the public safety category, the general pool, or the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) channels. With the advent of rebanding, which is intended to resolve interference to public safety systems, options have been significantly impacted. Future assignments are expected to be made primarily from NPSPAC channels. NPSPAC channels, when rebanded, are relocated exactly 15 MHz below their original assigned frequencies. In the original NPSPAC band, 230 channels were available to public safety licensees, subject to assignment in accordance with regional plans. Five of those channels were designated nationwide for conventional analog mutual aid use, leaving 225 assignable channels. Any system licensed for more than four channels is required to be trunked. Augusta County, and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro are located within Region 42 (Virginia, except Northern Virginia). The Region 42 Plan “pre-assigned” channels to each locality based on population, with no locality being assigned less than three. Augusta County, the City of Staunton and the City of Waynesboro were each pre-allocated three channels. Additional channels can be and are assigned as needed and requested. Although channels are pre-assigned, there is still an application process to review and coordinate their actual use through the Region 42 Regional Planning Committee (RPC). This committee review and approval is required before the application is forwarded to the FCC. 700 MHz
On June 24, 2010 the Region 42 700 MHz Regional Plan was approved by the FCC. In the 700 MHz band, all channel assignments are made in 6.25 KHz increments. Channel utilization with bandwidths wider than 6.25 KHz must be spectrally equivalent such that it provides one talk path (or 4800 bps data rate) for each 6.25 KHz of spectrum assigned. The Region 42 Plan adopts the National Coordinating Committee’s (NCC) recommended method of pre-coordination by using the Computer Assisted Pre-coordination Resource and Database (CAPRAD) as the base allotment methodology. The purpose of CAPRAD is to create a nationwide centralized database to manage distribution of the 700 MHz public-safety spectrum. CAPRAD will serve as a central repository of the 700 MHz frequency information including regional plans, applications, submittals, approvals, coordination and licensure. Applicants will be able to make application, receive regional approval, acquire coordination from their selected coordinating body and submit the application to the FCC by Internet for licensing. Through use of CAPRAD pre-coordination is completed through the system as it is designs the allotment based on a distribution of frequencies to every County (City) in the United States. This program utilizes population density in determining channel assignments. Respective border considerations are designed in the algorithm of the system.
September 23, 2011 62
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
The Region 42 Regional Planning Committee has adopted the CAPRAD system for allotting interoperability spectrum in Region 42 in which the committee has determined that sufficient spectrum has been allocated for this purpose in the National Plan to meet the region’s current and future needs. A review of Appendix F. in the Region 42 Plan identifies initial voice channel allotments for Augusta (10), Staunton (7) and Waynesboro (6). Internal Availability and Reuse of UHF frequencies
During the transition period, it may be necessary or desirable to change the use of some channels to make the best use and minimize the chance for interference from or to the new system. This may require a reprogramming of all associated subscriber radios in order to remain fully operational.
September 23, 2011 63
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGN Alternatives Considered and Design Recommendation
In evaluating the alternatives for the Augusta, Staunton and Waynesboro regional interoperable system, RCC considered several options to address the needs of the anticipated regional users. As indicated earlier in this report there were many factors to be considered such as need for improved interoperable communications, costs associated with current technologies or the impact of NRAO/NRQZ conditions and restrictions. Those options were again:
• Enhance and Build Out Operations for a Consolidated Simulcast Conventional Non- Trunked System operating at the 450-470 MHz UHF Frequency Band The first alternative would be to improve and expand coverage through consolidation of the current County and two Cities UHF independent system(s) into a regional consolidated simulcast non-trunked system and convert existing channels (15 to 16 current County and City frequencies have been tentatively identified for use) or implement additional ones to support new users while maintaining operation in a conventional environment. However, for reasons explained previously in this report this will require frequency coordination for virtually every channel being considered for conversion to consolidated use and this could impact the utilization of some them in this arrangement.
• Enhance and Build Out Operations for a Consolidated Simulcast Conventional Trunked System operating at the 450-470 MHz UHF Frequency Band The second alternative would be a similar approach to that of the first alternative except this approach would include the application of a trunked system for improving and expanding coverage in the course of consolidating the current independent system(s) into a regional simulcast trunked system with the potential to operate in a digital environment. As indicated earlier in the Spectrum Availability Section of this report because of the trunked application this will require added stringent frequency coordination for virtually every frequency considered to be used for this type of system and could impact the utilization of some them in this arrangement. This could also be the first step in establishing a coverage contour and usage prior to coordination and conversion to trunked services in the future.
• Transition to a Consolidated Simulcast Trunked System operating at the 700 or 800 MHz frequency band The suggestion of this alternative would be to procure and install a complete, standalone trunked radio system for all users in the Augusta region. The advantages of this alternative are that it would allow similar features offered by this type of system for all participating regional users and would allow the region to operate an autonomous system while operating within a band that allows all regional public safety and public service agency users to carry a single radio for communications because of sharing and using a common radio system infrastructure. Regardless of the band selected for a simulcast trunked system this would require fixed network “infrastructure” and controlling equipment, as well as the portable, mobile, and control station “subscriber” equipment. The fixed network equipment would also be more costly at 700 or
September 23, 2011 64
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
800 MHz. The requirement to maintain and administer the system also would increase operational costs. Should the region choose to implement the simulcast non-trunked system at 450 MHz, this would be possible for the reasons already described. Again, implementation would likely not be completed before interim efforts to meet the narrowband requirements have been met. One benefit to continue using this band is that some levels of interoperability can still be maintained with most neighboring (or existing) UHF systems operating within or adjacent to the geographical boundary of the County with the exception of those political subdivisions that are operating in the VHF, 700 and 800 MHz frequency bands. For reasons discussed throughout this report the long term recommendation is for the Augusta Region to move toward a trunked system environment. While operation in the 450-470 MHz UHF frequency band may be viable because of licensing currently in place it should be indicated that the frequency bands with the greatest amount of clean available spectrum for trunked system use are the 700 and 800 MHz bands, which are now considered as one band by most manufacturers. These are expected to allow more room for growth, and were developed with trunked communications in mind. Use of this band also allows for a cleaner transition with the fewest conflicts or consideration of current frequencies from existing operations, since only one public safety agency and two channels are in use. Finally, these higher bands lend themselves better to penetration into buildings where openings and apertures exist, and to those buildings where distributed antenna systems would be necessary for any band. RCC recommends that if a trunked radio system were contemplated at some point in the future consideration should be given to minimal implementation of a 15 channel digital trunked radio system. In recognition of current standards and practices the proposed system should be Project 25 compliant to ensure interoperability with other public safety users. Additionally, the system should be designed to allow the future addition of users (both public safety and public service). It would also be recommended that conventional analog channels should be implemented as necessary to support on scene tactical communications, interoperability, and dispatch page alerting operations.
September 23, 2011 65
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
COST ESTIMATES Introduction
This section contains cost estimates to a “rough order of magnitude” (ROM). For this level of information and detail, the actual cost is normally expected to vary between 50% and 200% of the estimate. As other factors become better defined, this estimate would be revised and become more certain. The estimate is based on a 16 channel, 7 site simulcast communications system with a three individual communications center of similar architecture with a combined total of 12 existing operator positions currently using Motorola CentraCom Gold Elite Console equipment. Assumptions
A set of assumptions has been developed to quantify the estimates for the described system. The cost of a communication system is generally broken into three components: the fixed system infrastructure; the dispatch center equipment; and the subscriber units to be deployed on the system. The cost estimates here consider the development of at least two new sites (Middlebrook and Deerfield). Should additional analysis reflect the need to develop an additional site(s) than the site develop cost per site will need to be added to the budgetary estimate cost identified later in the Cost Breakdown Section for each additional site required. Site development consists of:
• Site Acquisition • Construction, or rehabilitation of Towers • New Buildings • Utility Services and Fuel Supplies • Generators The existing radio sites (shelters and towers) that would likely be used are not “green field” sites. They have existing facilities that are expected to have been developed for a more modestly sized system. There is a possibility that some of the existing Towers are unlikely to be able to support the additional antennas as engineering standards (TIA/EIA-222-G) have been updated to more stringent requirements from the time most of these towers were initially constructed. This could be a basis for conducting a new tower load analysis to be sure of the available loading capability of required or additional antennae or appurtenances. Performance of this type of analysis is required to be performed by structural engineering company certified to conduct such evaluations. Descriptions or information indicated for some of the existing towers (Ex: Waynesboro Landfill Tower and Staunton’s Reservoir Hill sites) suggest they may have already reached their maximum loading potential and will require structure modifications to allow for increased loading of land mobile antennas and microwave dishes.
September 23, 2011 66
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Insufficient floor space in existing equipment buildings to house both existing and new equipment during interim periods is a concern that needs to be evaluated further and planned for. Preliminary information indicates that additional floor space may, or would not be available in several of the existing equipment shelters utilized by the political subdivisions. Inspection of the Waynesboro Landfill Tower Site revealed there is no additional space for any expansion in the current shelter. Additional space in many of the other equipment shelters may be obtainable through reconfiguration of rack configuration location and mounting of equipment. However, more detailed evaluation is recommended to be certain of space needs once system alternatives are established. Power and cooling systems are not expected to have been sized in order to accommodate these changes. Changes and improvements in installation practices and building codes may also impact the usefulness of existing sites. Radio Fixed Network Equipment
Fixed network equipment cost depends largely on how many channels are required to support the users of the system, the number of sites needed to provide the coverage and reliability required, and whether the system will operate in a trunked environment. It also depends on the transport/backhaul systems, and the redundancy required for all key elements. It is assumed at this time that a 7 site system will be implemented with approximately 15/16 channels in a simulcast configuration. Communications Center Console Equipment
Plans for additional or replacement communications center console equipment at any of the PSAP locations was not identified at this time as it is anticipated that all of the current Gold Elite console electronics and equipment will still be capable of functioning and operating for dispatch communications after completion of the reprogramming of all remote repeaters that will be required as a result of the Narrowbanding process. Subscriber Equipment
Additional subscriber equipment required for the existing system(s) or for any system alternative will be obtained by the region through federal grant money that has already been obtained through previous grant process or processes. The subscriber equipment usually consists of: • Mobile Radios • Portable (Handheld) Radios and Accessories • Control Stations (Desktop Radios) Subscriber equipment generally accounts for significant portion of the total system costs. The chief variables are the number and types of subscriber equipment purchased. Three levels of subscriber equipment are typically available. Often, the upper two tiers of radio are based on the same architecture and quality, and differ only in user features. The lower tier radio will have
September 23, 2011 67
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
relaxed specifications, a different architecture that doesn’t lend itself to expansion, and limited feature sets. High tier radios typically include a display screen and dial keypad, and also support advanced optional features such as encryption and multiple mode operation. The display and keypad support functions such as telephone interconnect and private call. Medium tier radios normally include all of the features and capabilities, and performance specifications of the high tier radio but do not have a keypad or full display. Medium tier radios may also lack some capabilities such as highly secure encryption or multiple-key encryption capabilities. Low tier radios permit basic features and channel selection, but do not include a display or keypad, and may not be capable of supporting large channel configurations or advanced features. They may also possess a lower performance specification, and may not be capable of operating with special features (mobile vehicle adapters, or external accessories such as extended microphones or security kits). High tier radios are generally issued to command staff and supervisory level personnel who have a need for these features and functions, and system level authorization to use them. High tier radios also offer the greatest flexibility for expansion or multiple system operation. Medium tier radios are often issued to larger groups of public safety personnel, while low tier radios are issued to administrative or support agencies that do not generally require the high functionality, or where the cost-benefit ratio and sheer inventory do not allow their purchase. Cost Breakdown
Fixed UHF Infrastructure Equipment Qty Description Unit Extended
2 Site Development (tower, shelter, power, security) $375,000 $750,000
78 Base Stations $12,500 $975,000 16 Voters $12,000 $192,000 28 Simulcast Card Sets (4 card sets per site) $20,000 $560,000 14 Channel Bank (1 per site plus 7 @ Prime Site) $ 6,000 $ 84,000 16 Simulcast Controller-CTSS (1 per channel @ Prime Site) $ 4,000 $ 64,000 28 Antenna Systems (one Rx and four Tx assumed-Installed) $ 20,000 $560,000
9 Microwave Transport/Interconnectivity Equipment $120,000 $1,080,000 $4,265,000
September 23, 2011 68
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Console and Dispatch Center Equipment (no furniture or other outfitting) As indicated previously the addition or replacement of communications center console equipment for any of the PSAP locations was not anticipated at this time or were any costs developed as such.
Subscriber Equipment Pricing for additional subscriber equipment required for the existing system(s) or for any system alternative has previously been identified and obtained by the region therefore no additional costs were developed.
Premium for Trunked Operation For reference and as part of the regions long term goal radio communication planning process an overall premium of 20% can be estimated and calculated for radio equipment required if trunked operation is considered or selected. The total of that premium amount is $860K for a fully equipped and outfitted system as described above.
Offset of Initial Cost for Shared Master Site For information purposes only as an example if the opportunity for regional cooperation outside of Augusta County presented itself that if another political subdivisions trunked radio systems master site can be shared, then there could be a potential savings of about $1.75 M for that equipment. However, there would likely be an additional cost for microwave transport equipment (minimal estimate of $240K for two hops to connect the system), as well as additional costs for other hardware and software licensing that would be required. It is assumed that there could be approximately $1.25M in savings through this type of shared opportunity in initial costs. Cost Summary
The total cost of all items above is approximately $4.3M for the UHF system as discussed. For a similar system implemented with trunking operation the cost would be around $5.2M. These costs are also presuming that the costs and ownership of subscriber radios will continue to be the responsibility of each of the participating political subdivisions although they may agree for the purposes of obtaining best favorable pricing and standardization to enter into a joint arrangement for procuring and maintaining these units. The above UHF system cost summary figures do not include any project management or engineering costs. For budgetary purposes and other cost considerations, a ROM of pricing for these services are estimated to be somewhere in the range of $600-$900K and are based on an estimate of combined time of somewhere between 330 to 500 work days for performance of the various engineering and project management tasks that may be needed but would ultimately be determined based on UHF system specifications identified as part of a RFP or other similar procurement document that will need to be developed and issued for procurement purposes. Although identified and referenced in the report as a potential longer term alternative/goal for the region, the following figures and budgetary estimates have been included here to provide for a
September 23, 2011 69
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
ROM of pricing and reference of costs that would likely be linked with the implementation of a 700 or 800 MHz radio system. This pricing reflects an estimate of cost for equipment associated with a seven site system, microwave backbone and a single PSAP/Dispatch facility containing at least 4 console (electronics) positions. As indicated previously, actual pricing would eventually be based on the development of system specifications, a procurement process and final contract negotiations with a vendor. Equipment and installation costs for a 700 or 800 MHz system will perhaps include trunking system equipment ($5.7M), fixed network equipment installation ($825K), microwave system equipment ($900K) and microwave equipment installation ($215K) all estimated at a total cost of approximately $7.6M. This pricing does not include any costs for tower, shelter or site development equipment as well as any costs for vendor project management, project engineering, factory staging of a new system, system acceptance testing or training for system manager, field users and dispatchers. A budgetary estimate of cost for the latter items (project management, engineering, factory staging, system acceptance testing and training) would be more or less in the range of $1.5M. The estimate of cost for the former items will be dependent upon both the number of new sites required to be developed verses the number of existing sites that may just require some type of modification or replacement of an existing structure or building. As an example, the replacement cost of an existing shelter depending on size may range somewhere from $100-$125K and a self support tower may range from $80-$150K depending on height required. Estimate of cost for each new fully developed site if required, will be somewhere around $375K per location.
In regards to console (electronics) equipment costs the provision of additional positions in a dispatch center are estimated to be approximately $30,000 to $33,000 per position. Generally, with the technology being used in this type of system the engineering and design of the system links the console electronics to a single prime site/master site. Even if there is a single prime site/ master site this does not prohibit the use of multiple dispatch locations as each may be remotely linked. The cost for the connectivity and any reoccurring costs will depend upon the method (Ex: T1 monthly lease) used to link each remote PSAP location needed. A budgetary estimate of cost for each additional four position dispatch location installed in the region will be somewhere in the range of $250-$400K per location. Typical Additional Vendor Charges
Additional vendor charges, typically added to the total cost of the system, are included, but blended with equipment and not separated. Some of these costs are shipping, factory test, field- testing, vendor system engineering, vendor project management and training. These costs are based on the size and complexity of the proposed system. The estimates provided are typical, and are based on similar projects. Actual costs associated with these items may vary, depending on the competition expected by potential vendors, and whether economies of scale are extended to the region for work performed.
September 23, 2011 70
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Spares The estimates provided include minimal spares for subscribers, but do reflect quantities shown in inventories. No cost is provided for infrastructure and subscriber equipment. Vendor proposals usually recommend some level of sparing to prevent the possibility of lengthy downtime in the event of a system failure. The final amount and type of spares should be negotiated and based on the type of maintenance contract, response time for technicians, and local availability of spare parts. Contingency and Internal Project Management RCC recommends that the Regional Working Group identify and reserve budget funding into the project for contingency purposes and internal efforts. There are normally unforeseen circumstances that may require design revision, site modifications, or other changes to the proposed system. In order to be able to respond to these change requests, some amount of contingency funding is recommended. Typically RCC recommends approximately 7% of the proposed equipment cost. This amount is not included in the cost estimates. The estimate provided for internal project management is an estimate of the cost for an independent consultant to oversee the implementation process. If the Regional Working Group plans to use a consultant during the installation phase, this figure should either be budgeted as part of the procurement contract or separately as part of a consultant contract. Depending on the level of effort required and size of the system, these costs can be expected to vary from 5% to 15% of the contract cost. System Maintenance Costs Beyond Warranty Period After the initial one-year warranty period, costs can be expected for maintenance and support of both hardware and software. Typically, vendors are required to provide in their initial proposal, a long-term commitment to provide service and support, including costs and escalation caps for a period of at least five years, preferably longer. In the case of trunked radio systems, because are heavily dependent upon custom software to operate the radio system infrastructure, the system owner(s) can also expect a software maintenance program, which provides the software (but not installation services) for each new upgrade of the system operating system and software. Again, the costs of these services vary depending on system size. There are minimum incremental entry costs, but additional savings or discounts for larger systems often can be negotiated. System owner(s) can expect to see second year hardware maintenance costs (year one after system warranty) for fixed equipment of approximately 10% of the system cost, and an annual escalation of about 4% throughout the support period, assuming continuous coverage and total support. Extended warranty for subscribers with depot service is very attractive, but often does not include the local service aspect (local problem determination or correction of installation related problems). Rates can vary, but are in the range of $4 per unit per month for a two year extended warranty.
September 23, 2011 71
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
NEXT STEPS The development, implementation, operation, maintenance, and administration of a regional consolidated communication system are a major undertaking regardless of the number of channels or type of architecture. For this reason RCC recommends that in consideration of the information identified or discussed in this process and based on the outcome of the consensus decision process that the Augusta County Regional Interoperability Working Group start the planning process for the implementation of a consolidated region-wide communications network based on the Regional Conceptual UHF Simulcast Non-Trunked System Design utilizing antenna models identified by RCC in place of those identified by the VITA office of the Commonwealth of Virginia for all participating agencies in public safety and public service systems. Again, although based on a very preliminary frequency search evaluation there appears to be sufficient UHF channels available for conversion from the various current County and City systems to implement a consolidated regional system, for the reasons explained in more detail earlier in the Spectrum Availability Section additional frequency coordination will be required to be certain of their availability for use and conversion in a simulcast system. Once a decision is made on the preferred alternative, work should be initiated to develop a project charter to accomplish the work. A charter should include detailed descriptions of the rationale for selection of alternative(s), project objectives, and expected outcomes or deliverables, a preliminary statement of work, a preliminary schedule including duration and constraints, an implementation plan with anticipated resource requirements, and an approved budget. Once a charter is approved, the preliminary scope statement should be developed and verified with stakeholders. The preliminary scope statement documents the deliverables, sets project boundaries, acceptable methods of work and its delivery or acceptance. High level scope control is also defined at this point so that the approved project and expected outcomes remain in focus. With the project charter and preliminary scope statement in hand, detailed planning work should begin. This planning will define the detailed steps and resources required to accomplish the work, resulting in a detailed schedule and budget. Also included are planning for project risk and quality standards. Work should also begin immediately to clearly define the attributes of the Regional Systems subscriber base, the level of contribution or participation expected by members, and commitment from so that the arrangement for procurement, maintenance and operations, is acceptable to all parties. Work should begin to define the tasks necessary to identify locations and develop new facilities and establish connectivity. If the implementation of infrastructure includes any other participants or partners not previously considered or identified, lines of responsibility and communications should be developed. It is generally assumed that with any shared infrastructure development or expansion, the primary infrastructure owner would take the primary lead as systems administrators unless other arrangements are agreed to.
September 23, 2011 72
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Phase One – Analysis and Preliminary Design
Once the Regional Working Group has determined a preferred direction, approved a charter and preliminary project scope and detailed plans, an analysis of needs and preliminary design should begin. Discussions with stakeholders and partners should turn attention to developing detailed descriptions of the users to be served, as well as their environmental, functional and performance requirements. Also developed at a conceptual level would be system diagrams, user inventory lists, statements of work, available resources and preferences. Phase Two– Detailed Design and Procurement
Phase two takes the results of phase one, refines the requirements into a procurement document which includes specifications, procedures, and evaluation criteria. After publication, prospective vendors are invited to review the document, visit existing or potential sites, ask for and ask for clarification or correction where necessary. Upon receipt and preliminary evaluation of bids or proposals, a short list of vendors is developed, and follow up questions or requests for clarification are issued. Vendors are further interviewed and their responses evaluated prior to final selection, negotiation, and contract. Depending on the vendor responses and design consensus some preliminary work may proceed in the areas of permitting, site acquisition, frequency coordination, preparation of FAA notices and submission of FCC license applications. Phase Three – Implementation
As previously stated, the actual implementation plan is highly dependent on the system alternative chosen. Regardless of design, the following plan will form a basis to be expanded on as the system is further defined. A. Infrastructure Development of new sites or rehabilitation of existing sites Acquisition of additional frequency resources Equipment Testing, Delivery, Installation, and Optimization B. Subscriber Units Template Design and Sample Testing/Programming Replacement Units Equipment Upgrades Equipment retuning, reconfiguration, or replacement C. Logistics and Migration Interim or parallel equipment planning System commissioning System activation and cutover (phased) Construction notices Channel migration (from current or interim system to final) User migration Transition to warranty and maintenance service
September 23, 2011 73
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
The following time line represents a high level view of the typical amount of time required to complete the detailed system design and procurement phase and to implement a new radio system. Actual time required will vary depending on the type of and detail of system planned for implementation and project management decisions. There are some activities toward the end of the project that may overlap significantly.
Detailed Design and Procurement Package Development 12-20 weeks
Vendor Proposal Receipt and Initial Review 6-8 weeks
Proposal Clarification and Vendor Negotiations 6-8 weeks
Contract Execution 3-4 weeks
Site Acquisition, Permitting and development, and FCC licensing 26-52 weeks
System Implementation 52 or more weeks
September 23, 2011 74
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
APPENDIX A: PROPAGATION COMPARISON & MICROWAVE MAPS Sites: Devils Knob Elliott’s Knob Massanutten Peak Reservoir Hill Waynesboro Landfill Middlebrook (future) Deerfield (Rx only) Mt. Solon (Rx only) Verona (Rx only) • Map 1: Augusta County w/Existing Antenna Configuration Talk-Out UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 2: Augusta County w/Existing Antenna Configuration Talk-In UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 3: Augusta County w/Existing Antenna Configuration Talk-Out UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 4: Augusta County w/Existing Antenna Configuration Talk-In UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 5: Augusta County w/ State Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration Talk-Out UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 6: Augusta County w/ State Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration Talk-In UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 7: Augusta County w/RCC Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration Talk-Out UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 8: Augusta County w/RCC Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration Talk-In UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 9: Regional Conceptual Design w/RCC Antenna Configuration Talk-Out UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 10: Regional Conceptual Design w/RCC Antenna Configuration Talk-In UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 11: City of Waynesboro Landfill Existing Configuration Talk-Out UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 12: City of Waynesboro Landfill Existing Configuration Talk-In UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 13: City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration Talk-Out UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 14: City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration Talk-In UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 15: City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration Talk-Out UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 16: City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration Talk-In UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 17: City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration Talk-Out UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 18: City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration Talk-In UHF Wide-Band 25 kHz • Map 19: City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration Talk-Out UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 20: City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration Talk-In UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz • Map 21: Proposed Conceptual Regional Loop-Microwave • Map 22: Comparison 700/800 MHz Frequency Band Trunked System
Coverage levels are depicted on each map as identified below for both Talk-Out and Talk-In. Red/Blue: Solid Portable Coverage on Street w/Portable on Hip -88.8 dBm Green: Solid Mobile Coverage on Street -106.0 dBm
September 23, 2011 75
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 1 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 71%
Map 2 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 81%
September 23, 2011 76
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 3 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 68%
Map 4 ‐ Augusta County with Existing Antenna Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 79%
September 23, 2011 77
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 5 ‐ Augusta County with State Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 54%
Map 6 ‐ Augusta County with State Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 70%
September 23, 2011 78
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 7 ‐ Augusta County with RCC Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 61%
Map 8 ‐ Augusta County with RCC Recommended Quite Zone Antenna Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Countywide Coverage = 75%
September 23, 2011 79
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 9 ‐ REGIONAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN w/RCC Antenna Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 78%, Waynesboro = 99%, Staunton = 100 %
Map 10 ‐ REGIONAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN w/RCC Antenna Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 82%, Waynesboro = 99%, Staunton = 100 %
September 23, 2011 80
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 11 ‐ City of Waynesboro Landfill Existing Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable/Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 26%, City = 99%
Map 12 ‐ City of Waynesboro Landfill Existing Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable/Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 21%, City = 98%
September 23, 2011 81
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 13 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 29%, City = 99%
Map 14 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 23%, City = 98%
September 23, 2011 82
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 15 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County=25%, City=98%
Map 16 ‐ City of Staunton Reservoir Hill Existing Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County=19%, City=98%
September 23, 2011 83
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 17 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 30%, City = 87%
Map 18 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Wide‐Band 25 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County = 27%, City = 81%
September 23, 2011 84
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Map 19 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration TALK‐OUT: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County =27, City = 81%
Map 20 ‐ City of Staunton Water Treatment Tower Existing Configuration TALK‐IN: UHF Narrowband 12.5 kHz Portable & Mobile Coverage Percent Coverage: County =24, City = 76%
September 23, 2011 85
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
PROPOSED REGIONAL LOOP MICROWAVE PATH
Map 21 – Proposed Conceptual Regional Loop‐Microwave
September 23, 2011 86
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Comparison 700/800 MHz Frequency Band Trunked System
Map 22 – Comparison 700/800 MHz Frequency Band Trunked System
September 23, 2011 87
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS APCO Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International BDA Bi-Directional Amplifier: A system of filters and amplifiers usually connected to outdoor “donor” and indoor “re-radiating” antennas or radiating transmission lines that improves signals inside of buildings. CDCSS Continuous Digital Coded Squelch System: A digital selective signalling system that limits access and minimizes nuisance interference from other co-channel users. Also referred to as DPL by Motorola FCC Federal Communications Commission: The Federal regulatory agency responsible for the orderly assignment and proper utilization of radio spectrum and other telecommunications related issues. FNE Fixed Network Equipment: Equipment associated with the radio frequency system infrastructure. E.g. base stations, antenna systems, transport systems, etc. but excluding subscriber equipment and control stations. Multi-Cast A method of transmitting the same information from geographically dispersed locations on different frequencies in order to provide wide area coverage without causing self- interference P-25 APCO Project 25 Standard for public safety digital communications systems Simulcast A method of transmitting the same information from geographically dispersed locations on the same frequency in order to provide wide area coverage. Compared to multi-cast, it is more spectrally efficient and simple for users, but more costly to implement and maintain, Subscriber Any “end user” radio, such as portable, mobile, or control station equipment Talk Group In trunked radio operation, a virtual channel. A talk group is a radio user selection available to a group of similar users. Users who have selected the same talk group can communicate with each other, but are not restricted or assigned to a specific radio channel. UHF Ultra High Frequency: Generally the frequency band between 300 and 3,000 MHz, but in this report, referring to equipment in the 450-470 MHz range VHF Very High Frequency: Generally the frequency band between 30 and 300 MHz. In land mobile radio, there are further distinctions of low band VHF (30-50 MHz) and high band VHF (150-174 MHz).
September 23, 2011 88
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE RF COVERAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS All coverage requirements described in this section for voice service shall be based on a round trip (transmit and receive) delivered audio quality (DAQ) rating as defined in TIA/EIA/TSB88- A-4.4.1. Minimum acceptable quality ratings shall be DAQ 3.0 for analog voice and DAQ 3.4 for digital voice. Acceptable quality for digital data service requires a round trip bit error rate of two percent (BER 2%) or less. All coverage predictions shall reflect a minimum of 95% reliability throughout the defined service area, and shall state the level or degree of achievement as a percentage of the entire service area covered. The goal is to provide acceptable quality at the stated reliability to at least 95% of the defined primary service area to every class of user. The primary service area includes all jurisdictions, or political subdivisions within the geographical boundaries of Augusta County Virginia, the City of Staunton, Virginia and the City Waynesboro, Virginia including all enclosed waterways, and extending for three miles in any direction beyond the exterior boundary of these localities. Coverage predictions shall use terrain data with 30-meter horizontal resolution or better, and a minimum of 100-meter land use classification overlay for performance modeling. Coverage performance prediction shall be calculated and illustrated via maps and tables to reflect level of performance using portable radios, mobile radios, and personal paging receivers. The system development must include a methodical measurement and verification process to ensure and demonstrate compliance. Performance parameters for fixed network equipment shall be based on those which are achievable with current production equipment, and can be licensed within the technical limitations of Federal Communications Commission Rules and Regulations. Mobile radio configuration and operational environment shall assume the use of an operational transmit power of 25 Watts and a quarter-wavelength fender mounted antenna (approximately 48” above ground level to tip) while traveling at speeds of up to 80 MPH. Portable radio configuration and operational environment shall assume the use of an operational transmit power of not more than four Watts and use in a hip-worn configuration with an extended speaker-microphone without an extended antenna (on-hip operation for both receive and transmit conditions). In addition to normal design parameters, the system design and coverage maps will provide and depict an additional 10 dB margin of excess loss to accommodate operation of portable radios inside of light buildings throughout the primary coverage area defined above. The margin shall be in addition to diffraction and shadowing losses of operating portable radios in land use classification environments and terrain database overlays The design must provide for coverage in critical areas with an additional 10 dB of excess loss for each class of coverage. Critical coverage areas may be defined by polygons where necessary to represent large areas of high call volume, dense construction or extensive in-building coverage requirements (Ex: Staunton, Waynesboro and surrounding urban areas). Additionally, a listing of individual critical structure locations is provided, where they are not situated within a larger
September 23, 2011 89
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
critical coverage area (note: this results in a total of 20 dB of excess loss for portables in-building beyond that expected for portables “on-street”). Coverage maps and tables must be provided that depict region-wide mobile coverage. Coverage maps and tables must be provided that depict countywide coverage for portable on-street operations configured as defined above (0 dB margin) and portable in-building coverage in light buildings or critical coverage areas, as defined above (10 dB and 20 dB margins). The system and fleet radios must allow for direct portable and/or mobile unit-to-unit communications without the need for a support infrastructure (“talk-around”) with a minimum range of one mile over unobstructed terrain. Vehicular repeaters may not be used in the design of the system to meet coverage requirements, but the system design must accommodate their use to achieve portable coverage in areas where losses exceed the expectations as stated in this section, or other operational requirements exist.
September 23, 2011 90
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
APPENDIX D: RADIO SYSTEMS INVENTORY Inventory numbers are based on information provided by individual political subdivisions.
Chan Location QTY BAND MODEL DESCRIPTION NB Compatible Capacity
Narrowbanding Not Required Augusta 911 Center 4 n/a Gold Elite CONSOLE N/A Augusta 911 Center 2 Low Band Base Station N/A 1 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 1 Low Band MASTR II Base Station N/A 2 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 5 Low Band CDM‐1250 Mobile N/A 64 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 60 Low Band Mobile N/A City of Staunton Police Department 4 Gold Elite Console N/A City of Waynesboro 4 Gold Elite Console N/A City of Waynesboro 3 Low Band MaxTrac 300 Mobile N/A City of Waynesboro 18 Low Band Mitrek Mobile N/A Command Bus 2 Low Band CDM‐750 Mobile N/A 4 Reservoir Hill Tower 1 Low Band MASTR II Base Station N/A 1 Reservoir Hill Tower 1 Low Band MICOR Base Station N/A 1 Service Authority 1 Low Band Base Station N/A Service Authority 26 Low Band Mobile N/A Service Authority 8 Low Band Portable N/A Service Authority 3 Low Band Remotes N/A Verona Company 61Low Band Maxtrac Mobile N/A 16 Verona Company 61Low Band MITREK Mobile N/A 32 Verona Company 61Low Band GE Mobile N/A
Total Unaffected Low‐Band & 146 ConsoleEquipment
Equipment Not Narrowband Compliant ‐ Must Be Replaced Augusta 911 Center 6 UHF MSR‐2000 Control NO 1 Augusta 911 Center 1 UHF MSR‐2000 Control NO 1 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 10 UHF MacTrac Mobile NO 16 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 5 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Augusta County Fire Department 1 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Bridgewater Rescue 1 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Bridgewater Rescue 7 UHF HT‐600 Portable NO 16 Churchville Fire & Rescue 1 UHF TK‐830H Base Station NO 160 City of Staunton Police Department 3 UHF MSR‐2000 Base Station NO 1 City of Staunton Police Department 2 UHF MaxTrac Mobile NO 16 City of Staunton Police Department 16 UHF MaraTrac Mobile NO 32 City of Staunton Police Department 9 UHF Mitrek Mobile NO 32 City of Staunton Police Department 1 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 City of Staunton Police Department 1 UHF MICOR Repeater NO 1 City of Staunton Police Department 1 UHF MSF‐5000 Repeater NO 2 City of Waynesboro 1 UHF Micor Control NO 1 City of Waynesboro 40 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 9 UHF SP‐50 Portable NO 16 Craigsville Volunteer Fire Department 1UHFGM‐300 Mobile NO 16 Craigsville Volunteer Fire Department 7 UHF Maxtrac Mobile NO 16 Craigsville Volunteer Fire Department 8UHFHT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Deerfield Fire Department Co 22UHFHT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Dooms Fire Department 3 UHF HT‐600 Portable NO 6 Dooms Fire Department 3 UHF HT‐800 Portable NO 6 Dooms Fire Department 3 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Grottoes Volunteer Fire Department 16 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 5 UHF MaxTrac Mobile NO 16 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF HT‐600 Portable NO 6 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 6 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 3 UHF P‐110 Portable NO 16 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF SP‐50 Portable NO 16 New Hope Fire Department 1 UHF GM‐300 Mobile NO 16 New Hope Fire Department 4 UHF MacTrac Mobile NO 16 New Hope Fire Department 3 UHF Motorola Mobile NO New Hope Fire Department 9 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16
September 23, 2011 91
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 2 UHF MaxTrac Mobile NO 16 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 1 UHF SM120 Mobile NO 16 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 3 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 1 UHF SP‐50 Portable NO 16 Reservoir Hill Tower 1 VHF High Band GE Base Station NO 1 Riverhead Fire 3 UHF Max Trac Mobile NO Staunton School Bus System 1 VHF High Band GE MASTR II Base Station NO 2 Staunton School Bus System 1 VHF High Band SMH‐4000 Base Station NO Staunton School Bus System 4 VHF High Band Maxtrac Mobile NO 16 Staunton School Bus System 6 VHF High Band MITREK Mobile NO 32 Staunton School Bus System 4 VHF High Band IMH‐4100D Mobile NO Staunton School Bus System 8 VHF High Band SMH‐4000 Mobile NO Staunton School Bus System 1 VHF High Band P‐100 Portable NO 2 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 11 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 9 UHF IMU3100K Mobile NO Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF Maratrac Mobile NO 99 Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF Uniden Mobile NO Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF VX‐10 Portable NO 40 Verona Company 6 1 UHF Maxtrac Base Station NO 16 Verona Company 61UHFPM‐400 Base Station NO 16 Verona Company 6 9 UHF Maxtrac Mobile NO 16 Verona Company 62UHFHT‐600 Portable NO 6 Verona Company 6 12 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Weyers Cave Fire Department 2 UHF GM‐300 Mobile NO 16 Weyers Cave Fire Department 3 UHF MaraTrac Mobile NO 99 Weyers Cave Fire Department 16 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16 Weyers Cave Fire Department 1 UHF SP‐2850C Portable NO 16 Weyers Cave Fire Department 1 UHF VX‐10 Portable NO 16 Wilson Fire Co 19 1 UHF GM‐300 Mobile NO 16 Wilson Fire Co 19 14 UHF MaxTrac Mobile NO 16 Wilson Fire Co 19 1 UHF MaxTrac 300 Mobile NO 16 Wilson Fire Co 19 1 UHF HT‐1000 Portable NO 16
Total Equipment to be Replaced 312
Equipment Identified As Being Narrowband Compliant and Capable of Reprogramming for Narrowbanding Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 1 UHF CM‐300 Mobile YES 32 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 600 UHF Minitor VPagerYES2 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 12 UHF HT‐750 Portable YES 16 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 10 UHF JT‐1000 Portable YES 16 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 11 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 1 UHF TK‐3170 Portable YES 128 Augusta County Fire & Rescue Department 5 UHF VX‐800 Portable YES 200 Augusta County Fire Department 23 UHF CP‐200 Portable YES 16 Augusta County Fire Department 7 UHF MT‐1000 Portable YES 16 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 3 UHF CDM‐1250 Mobile YES 64 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 72 UHF MCS‐2000 Mobile YES 150 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 4 UHF CP‐200 Portables YES 16 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 65 UHF MTS‐2000 Portables YES 48 Augusta County Sheriff's Department 11 UHF HT‐1250 Portables YES 128 Bridgewater Rescue 1 UHF M/A‐COM Base Station YES 1 Bridgewater Rescue 1 UHF VX‐510 Mobile YES 32 Bridgewater Rescue 5 UHF VX‐500 Mobile YES 48 Churchville Fire & Rescue 8 UHF TK‐890 Mobile YES 160 City of Staunton Fire Department 10 UHF XTL‐1500 Mobile YES 48 City of Staunton Fire Department 4 UHF CDM‐1250 Mobile YES 128 City of Staunton Fire Department 12 UHF XTS‐1500 Portable YES 48 City of Staunton Police Department 61 UHF XTS‐1500 Portable YES 48 City of Waynesboro 1 UHF ASTRO Control YES 1 City of Waynesboro 5 UHF MTR‐2000 Control YES 32 City of Waynesboro 4 UHF CDM‐1550 Mobile YES 128 City of Waynesboro ? UHF MCS‐2000 II Mobile YES 150 City of Waynesboro 180 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 City of Waynesboro 5 UHF Quantar Repeater YES 1 City of Waynesboro 1 UHF MTR‐2000 Repeater YES 32
September 23, 2011 92
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Command Bus 3 UHF CDM‐1250 Mobile YES 64 Command Bus 2 VHF High Band CDM‐1250 Mobile YES 64 Command Bus 2 UHF MCS‐2000 Mobile YES 150 Command Bus 1 UHF PM‐1500 Mobile YES 255 Command Bus 6 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 1 UHF M1225 Mobile YES 16 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 1 UHF TK‐8160 Mobile YES 128 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 5 UHF TK‐372G Portable YES 32 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 6 UHF TK‐3170 Portable YES 128 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 14 UHF TK‐380 Portable YES 250 Craigsville Volunteer Fire Department 1UHFM‐1225 Mobile YES 4 Craigsville Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 Craigsville Volunteer Fire Department 4UHFTK‐380 Portable YES 250 Deerfield Fire Department Co 25UHFVX‐180U Portable YES 16 Deerfield Fire Department Co 23UHFTK‐350G Portable YES 160 Deerfield Fire Department Co 22UHFTK‐380 Portable YES 250 Dooms Fire Department 3 UHF TK‐372G Portable YES 32 Dooms Fire Department 10 UHF TK‐3170 Portable YES 128 Dooms Fire Department 3 UHF TK‐380 Portable YES 250 Elliott's Knob 7 UHF Quantar Repeater YES 1 Grottoes Volunteer Fire Department 4 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 32 Landfill Site City of Waynesboro 1 UHF MTR‐2000 Repeater YES 1 Landfill Site City of Waynesboro 5 UHF Quantar Repeater YES 1 Massanutten 6 UHF Quantar Repeater YES 1 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF CM‐300 Mobile YES 32 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF XTS‐1500 Mobile YES 48 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF PM1500 Mobile YES 255 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 10 UHF CP‐200 Portable YES 16 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF PR1500 Portable YES 32 Middlebrook Volunteer Fire Department 2 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 New Hope Fire Department 5 UHF TK‐890BK Mobile YES 160 New Hope Fire Department 7 UHF TK‐390K Portable YES 16 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 1 UHF TK‐372G Mobile YES 32 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 3 UHF TK‐840G Mobile YES 32 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 1 UHF TK‐860 Mobile YES 128 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 7 UHF TK‐350G Mobile YES 160 Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 1 UHF TK‐830G Mobile YES 160 Reservoir Hill Tower 7 UHF MTR‐2000 Repeaters YES 1 Riverhead Fire 3 UHF CM 300 Mobile YES unk Riverhead Fire 20 UHF CP200XLS Portables YES 128 Staunton School Bus System 12 VHF High Band CM‐200 Mobile YES 4 Staunton School Bus System 10 VHF High Band M1225 Mobile YES 4 Staunton Water Tower 2 UHF MTR‐2000 Repeaters YES 1 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 6 UHF MCS‐2000 Mobile YES 150 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 30 UHF TK‐372G Portable YES 32 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 5 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 10 UHF TK‐3170 Portable YES 128 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 5 UHF TK‐370 Portable YES 128 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 1 UHF TK‐350 Portable YES 160 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 2 UHF TK‐390 Portable YES 160 Staunton‐Augusta Rescue Squad 2 UHF TK‐3180 Portable YES 250 Stuart Draft Rescue Squad 1 UHF TK‐830 Base Station YES 160 Stuart Draft Rescue Squad 7 UHF TK‐830 Mobile YES 160 Stuart Draft Rescue Squad 3 UHF TK‐372 Portable YES 32 Stuart Draft Rescue Squad 10 UHF VX‐800 Portable YES 200 Stuart Draft Rescue Squad 38 UHF TK‐380 Portable YES 250 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 1 UHF TK‐830G Mobile YES 160 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 1 UHF TK‐890 Mobile YES 160 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 1 UHF TK‐890H Mobile YES 160 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 1 UHF TK‐372G Portable YES 32 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 5 UHF TK‐350 Portable YES 160 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 6 UHF TK‐350G Portable YES 160 Stuarts Draft Volunteer Fire Co 6 UHF TK‐390 Portable YES 160 Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF CM‐300 Mobile YES 32 Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 3 UHF FTL‐7011 Mobile YES 99 Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 12 UHF CP‐200 Portable YES 16
September 23, 2011 93
Technological and Regulatory Considerations For Land Augusta County Regional Interoperability Mobile Operations Communications Project Working Group
Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 3 UHF VX‐500 Portable YES 48 Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 3 UHF VX‐510U Portable YES 48 Swoope Volunteer Fire Department 1 UHF VX‐537 Portable YES 512 Verona Company 61UHFHT‐1250 Portable YES 128 Weyers Cave Fire Department 2 UHF M‐1225 Mobile YES 4 Weyers Cave Fire Department 2 UHF HT‐1250 Portable YES 128 Wilson Fire Co 19 1 UHF TK‐840 Mobile YES 32 Wilson Fire Co 19 1 UHF TH‐880H Mobile YES 250 Wilson Fire Co 19 1 UHF TK‐3180 Portable YES 250 Wilson Fire Co 19 14 UHF TK‐380 Portable YES 250
Total NB Capable Radios 1497
Equipment Unidentified Augusta County Fire Department 3 UHF Unk City of Staunton Police Department 1 UHF GE Control 1 City of Staunton Police Department 1 UHF GE Repeater 1 Craigsville Augusta Springs Rescue 4 UHF Kenwood Mobile Unk Deerfield Fire Department Co 2 9 UHF Kenwood Mobile Unk Mt. Solon Fire & Rescue 8 UHF Kenwood Mobile Preston L. Yancey Volunteer Fire Co. 2 UHF Kenwood Base Station
Total Equipment Unidentified 28
Total Radio Count 1838 NB Compatibility Key: N/A = Not required or Unaffected NO = cannot be Narrowbanded must be replaced YES = Narrowbanding Ready
September 23, 2011 94