2005 GSA Academy 2. Studies show that across the nation, public
safety officials have trouble communicating in operational
situations one-third of the time. Rick Murphy Program Manager
Public Safety Wireless Network Dept. Of Justice Radio
Interoperability: Why? 3. Definition of Radio Interoperability
- Radio Interoperability is the ability for public safety
providers to communicate, on demand, in real time, when needed, and
as authorized.
4. 1989 Ramstein Air Base,NATO Air Force Demonstration Team
Crash: Nearly 600 casualties, nearly 90 dead,Poor Planning
&Radio Interoperability WERE Factors 5. Other disasters
impacted Radio Interoperability WAS a Factor 6. Interoperable
Communications System Prerequisites
- Spectrum Common to all Users
7. PROPOSED SPECTRUM What are the public safety bands from which
we can attempt to obtain frequencies? 8. Standards-Based Shared
Systems System-SpecificRoaming Gateway (Console Patch) Mutual Aid
Channels Talkaround Swap Radios Most Complete Long-Term Solution
Full-featured, Wide Area Short-Term System Modification Well Known
With Public Safety Agencies Simple Short-Term Solutions APCO
Defined 6 Levels of Interoperability Method Fit Level Easily
deployed Time-consuming 9. CURRENT LEVEL OF INTEROPERABILITYEast
Bay
Level 2, 3, 4 & 5 VHF / UHF Conventional Repeated /
simulcast Level 3 & 5 800 MHz Trunked Systems
10. Level 1: Swap Radios
- Works Via: When disaster/major event occurs, involved agencies
physically exchange radios from their networks with each other upon
arrival at scene.
-
- Works across frequency bands
-
- Impractical for large scale events
-
- Delay with setup while swap is transacted
-
- Advanced features/config. not understood by Guest users
11. Level 2: Talkaround
- Works Via: Multiple radios talk directly to each other in
conventional mode using compatible subscribers--no infrastructure
link.
-
- No advanced features available to users
-
- Requires compatible over the air interface
-
- Requires same frequency band for subscribers
12. Level 3: Mutual Aid Channels
- Works Via: Multiple radios talk directly to each other using
common channels in conventional mode
-
- Added range over Level 1 since infrastructure is involved
-
- Relatively low cost to setup
-
- Setting it up forces some planning by regional agencies
-
- Requires compatible interfaces
-
- Requires trunked and conventional modes in subscriber
-
- No advanced features available to users
-
- Requires same frequency band for all subscribers
13. Level 4: Gateways (fixed and transportable)
- SmartLink - I Switch/I Network
- Motorolas Motobridge (SSRN)
- Infinimode Infinimux G4 Plus *
- * When installed and configured as fixed equipment
14. Fixed Gateways offer:
- Provides Interoperability between non compatible communication
systems
- Provides Dispatch capability
-
- Backup to existing dispatch consoles
- Can replay last conversation
- Intercom between dispatchers
- Can interface to phone systems
- Allows connectivity between a cell phone and radio systems
15. Level 4: Gateway Console Patch
- Requires 24-7 manned dispatch center
- Users request patch via dispatcher
- Dynamic capability easy to set-up
150 MHz System 800 MHz System 16. Level 4: Gateway Interface
Box
- Hardware component that sits between two networks
- RF or 4-wire audio links connect systems
- Provides audio only, no system specific features
150 MHz System 800 MHz System Gateway Unit ID Emergency Busy 17.
Level 4: Deployable RF Gateways
- Examples: ACU1000 & Infinimux G4
- Apparatus linking two networks via RF links
- Variety of technologies and approaches
- Usually requires operator intervention
800 MHz System Gateway in Vehicle . 150 MHz System OR . . Field
Deployed Gateway 18. Level 4: Gateway -- InterfaceRequires
Overlapping Coverage Gateway Audio Only Audio, ID, Emergency PTT,
etc. 800 MHz System B 150 MHz System A Gateway does not provide
interoperability here Gateway provides interoperability here Unit
ID Emergency Busy 19. Northern CA Gateway Concept - Radio East Bay
RCS P25 I-80 Gateway Network City/County of Sacramento Santa Clara
County San Francisco Digital TrunkedPlacer County VHF P25 Trunked
State of California Users Conventional Mutual Aid System
Departments of JusticeTreasury and Defense 20. Gateway Vision For
I-80 Corridor 21. Motobridge Network Overview OMC Server SIP Server
Dispatch Workstation Operations Management Location Existing
Console Dispatch Workstation Dispatch Only Location . . . . . . .
Typical Remote Radio Location Other Remote Radio Locations
CustomerIP Network Remote Radio Location1 8-ports/R-GU 22. Fixed
Gateway - Smartlink 23. Radio Gateway Unit Interfaces LAN Equipment
4W+E&M/Tone Remote Control Serial (Enables Radio controls,
Emergency Notification and Wireless Data) CEB BIM 4W+Tone Remote
Control 4W Serial (RS232) RedundantLAN Trunked Conventional PSTN
Consolette 1 to 8 interface Connections per RGU Cell LMR System
Station RGU 24. Workstation Modules
- Enable the operator to quickly create Interoperability between
the available resources
- Consist of a Workstation Gateway unitconnected to a dispatch
console
-
- Standalone unit or existing dispatch position
Radio Module DispatchModule Dispatch ConferenceModule Existing
Console LAN Equipment RedundantLAN WSGU 25. Tactical
Interoperability
- Must be rapidly deployable at any time (24/7)
- Should be fully operational within an hour of an incident
occurring.
- Requires oversight by trained Communications Unit Leaders, as
defined within the NIMS, to support equipment deployment.
- May be provided through the use of common equipment (common
channels, cached radios or shared systems) or a gateway between
dissimilar systems and/or radio frequency bands;
- Should always be in support of long-term interoperability by
building upon or accelerating long-term strategies and
efforts.
26. Level 5: System Specific Roaming
- Works Via: Radios talk to each other via infrastructure or
talkaround using infrastructure from same manufacturer
-
- Interoperability via the turn of a dial
-
- Covers large areas seamlessly
-
- Users can contact agencies across entire coverage area
-
- Can handle larger numbers of users
-
- No console intervention required
-
- All advanced features are available to users
-
- Additional planning and software required on each system
27. Level 5: System Specific Roaming SanFrancisco San Francisco
County of Alameda County of Alameda 28. Level 6:
Standards-BasedShared Systems
- Works Via: All radios built to a standard can talk to each
other via infrastructure or talkaround (P25)
-
- Interoperability via turn of a dial, real time
-
- Links different vendor systems and subscribers
-
- Out of the box interoperability, simple to set up
infrastructure
-
- Next generation equipment is backwards compatible to P25 phase
1
-
- No console intervention required
-
- All advanced features are available to users
29. Level 6: Standards-Based (P25) Shared Systems Zone
Controller Alameda County P25 Site San Francisco P25 Site Contra
Costa County P25 Site B A A 30. 31. ANSI/TIA/EIA-102 (Project 25 or
P25)
- National Chiefs of Police
- National Sheriffs Association
- National Fire Chiefs Association
- DOD, DOJ/FBI, Homeland Security
- Most major LMR manufacturers
32. Project 25 Key Requirements
-
- Meets FCC mandate for narrowband operation
-
- (some non-P25 radios are also narrowband capable)
- Interoperability between radio systems within a common band of
the spectrum; P25 does NOT afford interoperability for radios that
are not on a common band
- Compatibility with Existing Equipment
- Range Equal to Current Analog Systems
- Integrated Voice and Data Services
- Forward/Backward Compatibility
- Available 800/700/UHF/VHF
- Conventional or Trunked Systems
33. P25 System Vision Packet Gate System Management Data
Services Zone Comm. Servers IP Gate Internet or PDN PSTN / PBX
P25network Placer County MERA/San Mateo County VHF UHF 800 Wideband
Site Phase II Site IP Services East Bay RCS/Sacramento 34. 10
minute Break ? Up next: 6 minute video 35. Grant Megatrends 1950
9-11-2001 2003 FUTURE
New Urban Threat 36. What Has Changed in thePast 3 Years?
- Significantly more funding
- Applications becoming more complicated
- Creation of the Department of Homeland Security
-
- Consolidation of Funding to Locals
- Significantly faster funding mechanism
-
- Transfer funds in months instead of years
- COPs program is being phased out by the Administration
37. Homeland Security Grant Programs 38. What are the Funding
Trends?
- State Control of Grants Vs Local Autonomy
- Regional Projects Vs Single Jurisdiction Solutions
- Risk Assessment Criteria Tied to Grant Dollars
- All Hazard Planning Critical
- Uniform Equipment Standards
- Emergency Management Directors As Key Players
- Regional Consensus on Program Expenditures
- Increase in HLS funds offset decreased Justice funds
39. Presidential Directive HSPD-7
- Calls for an Integrated National Plan for Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection within 1 year (December
17, 2004)
-
- State and local governments are to be consulted during this
process, as are other federal agencies and the private sector
-
-
- goals, objectives, milestones and key initiatives;
-
-
- a strategy to identify, prioritize and coordinate the
protection of critical infrastructure and key resources;
-
-
- a summary of the specific activities that will be necessary to
define and prioritize, reduce the vulnerability of, and coordinate
the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources;
and
-
-
- a summary of initiatives for sharing critical infrastructure
and key resources information, and for providing critical
infrastructure and key resources threat warning data, to state and
local governments and the private sector
40. Presidential Directive HSPD-8 National Preparedness
- Creation of a National Domestic All -Hazard Preparedness
Goal
- This will be the "Primary Mechanism" for the delivery of
Federal Preparedness Assistance awards to States, predicated on
adoption of Statewide
- Comprehensive All-Hazards Preparedness Strategies
- Allocations to be based uponassessments of population,
critical
- infrastructure and other significant risk factors
- Federal preparedness will support State and local entities
efforts including planning, training, exercises, interoperability
and equipment acquisition
- On-going development and adoption of appropriate first
responder equipment standards that support nationwide
interoperability and other capabilities consistent with the
National Preparedness Goal, including the safety and
- health of first responders
41. Proposed Homeland Security Bills Eliminate Formula
Grants
- HR 3266 The Faster & Smarter Funding For First Responders
Act (Rep Cox R-CA)
- HR 3158 Preparing America To Respond Effectively Act (Rep
Turner
- Both Bills focus on restructuring the new grant programs within
DHS-
- Current formula process guarantees each state & US
territory receives a portion of the funds
- Establishment of grants based on threat & vulnerability
assessments,
- and criteria such as the presence of critical infrastructure,
key assets or national icons, population and other factors
- Both bills would not affect traditional law enforcement, fire,
rescue, emergency preparedness programs existing before 9/11
- S 1245 allows localities to receive direct funding from the DHS
and requires a single office for processing all HSD grant
applications
42. ODP Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
- Integrates Three Programs In A Single Application
- State Homeland Security Program
- Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
43. California - HSGP/ODP
-
- Original budget $31,595,000
44. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
- California Divided into 58 Operational Areas (OA)
- Approval Authority for each OA (Gang of 5)
-
- County Public Health Officer
45. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
- State Office of Emergency Services Approves Grant Award
- Has Your Agency Applied For These Funds???
-
- Have you been working with your OA?
- Has Your Agency Received these Funds??
46. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
- Interoperable Communications Plan Suggested
- When using ODP program funds in the category of Interoperable
Communications Equipment to build, upgrade, enhance, or replace
communications systems, grantees and sub-granteesshould develop a
comprehensive interoperable communications plan before procurement
decisions are made
- Plan should clearly illustrate how the proposed effort will
lead to
- enhanced public safety communications interoperability
- Plans should be retained by the jurisdiction/agency and be
available
- for review by the SAA and ODP
- ODP has issued Guidance for Developing Interoperable
Communications Plans
47. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
- Installation costsfor authorized equipment purchased through
ODP
- Maintenance contractsfor authorized equipment purchased
through
- ODP grants and acquired through DHS-ODPs Homeland Defense
Equipment Reuse (HDER) Program
- Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES)
- Training on CBRNE and cyber security equipment by vendors or
local entities
- Shipping costs for equipment
48. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention (LETP)
- California FY2004 $39,752,000
- Will follow a similar/same process as HSGP in California
49. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention (LETPP)
- Information Sharing to Preempt Terrorist Attacks:
-
- These funds will allow law enforcement communities to purchase
equipment and support efficient and expeditious sharing of
information and intelligence that could preempt possible terrorist
attacks
- Target Hardening to Reduce Vulnerability
-
- Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement
communities to make vulnerable targets more resistant to attack or
more difficult to remove or damage
-
- Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement
personnel to purchase equipment and conduct additional training
that assists in further recognizing the potential or development of
a threat
-
- Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement
personnel to purchase equipment and conduct activities to further
enhance their capabilities to prevent domestic terrorism
incidents
- Interoperable Communications
-
- Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement
personnel to purchase equipment to ensure interoperable
communications between, and among, law enforcement agencies and
other emergency service disciplines such as fire and emergency
management
50.
- Development of and participation in information/ intelligence
sharing groups
- Point vulnerability analyses and assessments
- Development and review of site security buffer zone plans
- Soft target security planning (public gatherings)
- Development, implementation and review of Area Maritime
Security Plans for ports, waterways, and coastal areas
- Updating and refining threat matrices
- Conducting local or regional implementation meetings
- Hiring of full or part-time staff or contractors/consultants to
assist with intervention activities (not for the purpose of hiring
public safety personnel)
- Developing or updating local or regional communications
plans
- Development or enhancement of cyber security plans
- Development or enhancement of cyber risk mitigation plans
- Conducting cyber risk and vulnerability assessments
51. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention (LETPP)
- Authorized equipment purchases may be made in the following
categories
-
- Personal protective equipment (PPE)
-
- Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment
-
- Interoperable communications equipment
-
- Physical security enhancement equipment
-
- Terrorism incident prevention equipment
-
- CBRNE incident response vehicles
-
- CBRNE reference materials
-
- CBRNE response watercraft
-
- Cyber security enhancement equipment
-
- Other authorized equipment
52. Urban Area Security Initiative
- Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) $725 million (2004)
-
- $675 Million - Urban Areas
-
- $50 Million - Metro Rail Transit Grants
53. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)- 2004 $7,076,396CA
Fresno, CA $7,854,691CA Oakland, CA City and County of Sacramento,
Yolo County, City of Folsom $8,024,926CA Sacramento, CA
$9,982,442CA San Jose, CA $10,345,691CA Anaheim, CA San Diego
County, Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El
Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove,
National City, Ocean-Side, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach
and Vista $10,479,947CA San Diego, CA Los Angeles County, Cities of
Long Beach, Belleflower, Carson, Compton, Hawaiian Gardens,
Lakewood, Paramount and Signal Hill $12,136,091CA Long Beach, CA
$15,058,528CA Santa Ana, CA City/County of San Francisco, Alameda
County, Marin County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County and
San Mateo County, and the Golden Gate Bridge District $26,481,275CA
San Francisco, CA City and County of Los Angeles, Cities of
Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale,
Hawthorne, Inglewood, Pasadena, San Fernando, Santa Monica,
Torrance, Vernon and West Hollywood $28,268,504CA Los Angeles, CA
54. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
- Administered by DHSs Office for Domestic Preparedness
- Distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security
- FY 2004 UASI allocations 50 Urban Areas and 30 Metro Rail
Systems
- UASI Program Formula - Weighted linear combination of the
following factors:
-
- Presence of Critical Infrastructure
- Only States are eligible to apply for this funding
- To expedite the application and award processes, no budget
information and program narrative is required to apply for this
grant.
- Upon approval of the electronic grant application, the grant
will be awarded to the respective state (SAA). This date will be
known as the receipt of funds date
55. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
- The state's 60 day obligation period must be met within 60 days
of the receipt of funds date.
- Note: Thereceipt of funds dateis contingent upon submission of
a validated Urban Area Assessment and a validated Urban Area
Homeland Security Strategy
- Urban areas must allocate all funding in support of goals and
objectives identified in their Urban Area Homeland Security
Strategy and the State Homeland Security Strategy
- Mass transit authorities must also allocate according to their
Transit Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan developed through
this program.
- Funding under the FY2004 UASI Program for urban areas and mass
transit systems may be used in any of five categories:
-
- Management and Administrative (M&A)
56. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
- Equipment purchases may be made in the following
categories
-
- Personal protective equipment (PPE)
-
- Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment
-
- CBRNE search and rescue equipment
-
- Interoperable communications equipment
-
- Decontamination equipment
-
- Physical security enhancement equipment
-
- Terrorism incident prevention equipment
-
- CBRNE incident response vehicles
-
- Medical supplies and limited types of pharmaceuticals
-
- CBRNE reference materials
-
- Agricultural terrorism prevention, response and mitigation
equipment
-
- CBRNE response watercraft
-
- Cyber security enhancement equipment
-
- Other authorized equipment
57. Interoperable CommunicationsTechnology for the City of
Murrieta, CA, Police Department for mobile data terminals;
$200,000for the County of Contra Costa, CA, for an integrated
justice information system; $250,000for the San Bernardino, CA,
Police Department for mobile data terminals; $250,000for Sacramento
County, CA, for law enforcement technologies; $300,000for the
Sacramento County, CA, Sheriff's Department for IT infrastructure
upgrades including the Sheriff's Information Management System;
$300,000for the Plumas County, CA, Sheriff's Department for law
enforcement technologies; $500,000for the City of Fairfield, CA,
Police CAD/RMS Dispatch and Records Project; $500,000for the City
of San Francisco, CA, to implement the Justice Information Tracking
System; $750,000for the East Valley Community Justice Center in CA;
$750,000for the Placer County, CA, Sheriff's Department for law
enforcement technologies; $750,000for San Francisco, CA, Bay Area
law enforcement technology systems; $1,000,000for the Los Angeles
County, CA, Sheriff's Department for law enforcement technologies;
$1,000,000for Carlsbad, CA, for the Automated Regional Justice
Information System; $1,000,000 58. Directed Appropriations
- Awarded by exception You have to specifically ask for it!
-
-
- Need multiple political champions
-
-
-
- Congressional Delegations
-
-
- Takes dedication and time
59. 60. System Governance& Management 61. 62. 63. Governance
Committee Action Plan:
- Identify Participants with Letter Of Intent (LOI)
- develop a Cost-Sharing Formula (predicated on a system design
with projected costs from the Technical Advisory Committee)
- Develop presentation(s) for Dept. Heads, elected officials and
City Managers / CAO
64. Operations Committee
- Identify Operation requirements for communications
- Develop SOPs for Tactical Interoperability Communications Plan
(TICP) by Sept. 2005
- Identify details of the Incident Command System procedures
(ICS) to be used by first responders
- Identify who the Communications Team members will be during
events
- Develop presentation(s) for Dept. Heads, elected officials and
City Managers / CAO
- develop and practice training protocol
65. Technical Advisory Committee
- Identify requirements with the OPS committee
- Develop equipment requirements based on ICTAP/consultant
recommendations (phased implementation)
- Identify & pursue funding sources
- *Draft RFPs / SOW for digital microwave, master site
controller, P25 repeater Sites, gateway, mutual aid repeaters, P25
capable consoles, etc.
- *Develop and Implement equipment required for TICP
- Develop presentation(s) for Dept. Heads, elected officials and
City Managers / CAO
66. Case Studies
- Denver / State of Colorado Gateway-Network 1 stLevel 4
- Phoenix / Mesa P25 Trunking Level 6
- San Diego/ Imperial Shared Trunking Level 5
- San Mateo Shared TrunkingLevel 5
- Sacramento Shared TrunkingLevel 5
- EBRCS (Alameda)Gateway,P25 Trunking, Tac-N-Stack
- MERA (Marin County) Shared Trunking Level 5
- SECA(Solano County) Gateway / Mutual Aid Levels 3,4
- Silicon Valley (SVRIP) Gateway, Tac-N-StackLevels 3,4
- Riverside & San Bernadino ?
- LARTCS (LA County) Gateway, Mutual aid Level 3,4
67. Emerging CA Regional Networks
- Placer County VHF P25 Trunked
- Sacramento County 800 Trunked
- Alameda / Contra Costa County 700/800 P25 Trunked
- Solano County ( SECA) 700/800 P25 Trunked
- City of Davis* 800 Trunked
- BARTCS VHF/UHF/800 Trunked
- LARTCS VHF/UHF/800 Trunked
- San Diego / Imperial Counties 800 Trunked
- Silicon Valley (SVRIP) VHF/UHF/800 Trunked
- Marin County (MERA) UHF T-band
- San Mateo County UHF T-band
68. Case Study- Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Project
(SVRIP) Proof of Concept#1 & #2 Proof of Concept #5 Proof of
Concept#3 and #4 E-Comm RegionalMicrowave System PROOF OFCONCEPT
PROJECTS BayMACS andFuture Radio 69. Case Studies - SVRIP 70. Case
Study: SVRIP - Multiple RIIBs Statewide RIIBs Additional RIIBs 71.
Related Legislation
- S1274 Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders
Act of 2005
-
- Funding as necessary thereafter
72. Related Legislation
- HR3266 Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of
2003
- HR3158 Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of
2003
- ? HERO act, pertains to the 700MHz and establishes a date
certain for the vacation of the TV channel spectrum
73. Resources (samples)
- dhs.gov (SAFECOM and or ICTAP)
74. Portions of this presentation provided, with permission
by:
- Homeland Security Dept./FCC via websites
- SmartLink Communications Inc.
75. Twin Towers-Sept. 11, 2001 Radio Interoperability WAS
aFactor 76. Questions? Aki Nakao Director,GSA Randy Hagar Deputy
Director, GSA Communications Dept. Alameda County [email_address]
(510)208-9789 John Navarette Director, General Services John
Downing Communications Services Manager Fresno County
[email_address] (559)456-7527