1 / 21

INTEROPERABILITY CHANNEL LICENSING ISSUE

INTEROPERABILITY CHANNEL LICENSING ISSUE. Presentation to CalSIEC 22 JUNE 2009. CLEMARS. Plan developed under OES, Law Enforcement Division CLEMARS Executive Committee provides policy guidance All licenses held by State Technical restrictions Antenna Height Power output.

khuong
Download Presentation

INTEROPERABILITY CHANNEL LICENSING ISSUE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. INTEROPERABILITY CHANNEL LICENSING ISSUE Presentation to CalSIEC 22 JUNE 2009

  2. CLEMARS • Plan developed under OES, Law Enforcement Division • CLEMARS Executive Committee provides policy guidance • All licenses held by State • Technical restrictions • Antenna Height • Power output

  3. CLEMARS FREQUENCIES • CLEMARS 1 154.920 MHz • CLEMARS 2 154.935 MHz • NALEMARS 155.475 MHz • CLEMARS 4/5 460/465.025 MHz • CLEMARS 6/7 39.46/45.86 MHz • CLEMARS 8/9 823/868.5125 MHz • CLEMARS 20/21* 821/866.2000 MHz • CLEMARS 22** 484.2375 MHz *Northern California Only ** Los Angeles Only

  4. CLERS • Plan developed under OES • Intended as point-to-point network • Mountain-top repeaters licensed by State • Control stations licensed by individual agencies • 12 frequencies combinations in VHF and UHF bands

  5. FIRE WHITE • Plan developed under OES, Fire and Rescue Branch • Licenses held by individual agencies • Technical restrictions • Power output • Primarily mobile operations

  6. FIRE WHITE FREQUENCIES • White 1 154.280 MHz • White 2 154.265 MHz • White 3 154.295 MHz

  7. CESRS/CALCORD • Plan developed by OES • Licenses held by State • Technical Restrictions • CALCORD is mobile only • Frequencies • CESRS 153.755/154.980 MHz • CALCORD 156.075 MHz

  8. HEARS • Plan developed under Emergency Medical Services Authority • Licenses held by individual agency • Frequency • 155.340 MHz

  9. NPSPAC MUTUAL AID • Plans developed by Region 5 (Southern California) and Region 6 (Northern California) Regional Planning Committees • Committee review/approve all applications • All licenses held by State • Technical Restrictions

  10. NPSPAC FREQUENCIES • ICALL 821/866.0125 MHz • ITAC 1 821/866.5125 MHz • ITAC 2 822/867.0125 MHz • ITAC 3 822/867.5125 MHz • ITAC 4 823/868.0125 MHz

  11. 700 MHz INTEROP CHANNELS • Plan to be developed by CalSIEC • Channel names defined • Not yet defined • Who will license stations • Technical limitations • Operational requirements

  12. NEW CHANNELS • Unknown if any entity has “assumed” responsibility for these • Not yet defined • Who will license stations • Technical limitations • Operational requirements

  13. “NEW” Frequencies • VCALL 155.7525 MHz • VTAC 1 151.1375 MHz • VTAC 2 154.4525 MHz • VTAC 3 158.7375 MHz • VTAC 4 159.4725 MHz • UCALL 453/458.2125 MHz • UTAC 1 453/458.4625 MHz • UTAC 2 453/458.7125 MHz • UTAC 3 453/458.8625 MHz

  14. LICENSING PROBLEMS • Licenses intended to be held by differing entities • Some state-held/Some individual agency-held • Difficult to change due to “legacy” processes • “Plan” developed by different groups • OES (now Cal EMA) on older frequencies • 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees (2) • Cal SIEC • Recommend consolidation under Cal SIEC

  15. LICENSING PROBLEMS • Existing plans need to be reviewed and updated • Recommend Cal SIEC establish a series of “working groups” to accomplish this task • Cal SIEC Executive should then review the individual “plans” for consistency

  16. LICENSING PROBLEMS • Existing process for licenses held by State is not functioning properly • Current Process • “Requesting agency” prepares a state-generated form • Submits form together with fee to OES for review for compliance with plan • OES forwards form to DGS-TD for preparation of license application to FCC • License forwarded to “requesting agency”

  17. RECOMMENDATION • Establish a working group to define a new process • Requests complying with defined criteria should be “fast-tracked” (i.e. staff are authorized to process) • Requests not complying with defined criteria should be diverted through an “Exception Process” that requires review/approval by one or more higher level policy committees • Requests that affect other users, all of whom are within a Regional Planning Area, might require review/approval by the Regional Planning Area Executive Committee • Requests having greater effect might require review/approval by the Cal SIEC Executive Committee • The new process must clearly define “who” is responsible for completing each step and forwarding to next stage

  18. LICENSING PROBLEMS • State-generated form does not collect all of the required information • Recommend using FCC Form 600 as alternative • “Requesting agency” does not provide all of the required information • Recommend using FCC Form 600. If incomplete, return to “requesting agency” • Requests “disappear into Black Hole” • Provide feedback to “requesting agency” throughout process

  19. DESIRED OUTCOMES • Decision • Is “responsibility” for all interop channels going to be consolidated within Cal SIEC or continue to be separated? • Creation of “working groups” to review and update (in some cases “create”) plans • Plan updates should define criteria for a “routine” application • Creation of a “working group” to update licensing process • Includes decision as to “who” will license each channel • Should include both a “routine” and an “exception” process • Clearly defines “who” performs each step

  20. “LETTER LICENSES” • Agency “A” authorizes Agency “B” to operate under the license held by Agency “A” • Permitted under Section 90.421 of the FCC Rules • Agency “A” assumes responsibility for how Agency “B” operates • Applies to mobile stations only • Fixed stations must be properly licensed • Question---does Agency “A” license in its own name, or does it allow Agency “B” to obtain a license on the frequency

  21. RECOMMENDATION • Standardize a process • Information needs to be exchanged • Frequencies authorized • Power and ERP permitted • CTCSS tones, system ID codes, etc. • Area of operation permitted • Callsign under which stations are to operate • Recommend periodic renewal

More Related