public safety mobile communications plan november 6 2003 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Public Safety Mobile Communications Plan November 6, 2003 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Public Safety Mobile Communications Plan November 6, 2003

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Public Safety Mobile Communications Plan November 6, 2003 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 98 Views
  • Uploaded on

Public Safety Mobile Communications Plan November 6, 2003. WyoLink Program. Began in October of 2002 Goal was to develop an actionable plan Driven by practicality of both technology and economics Hallmark of this program was its highly interactive nature. Overall Methodology.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Public Safety Mobile Communications Plan November 6, 2003' - oshin


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
wyolink program
WyoLink Program
  • Began in October of 2002
  • Goal was to develop an actionable plan
  • Driven by practicality of both technology and economics
  • Hallmark of this program was its highly interactive nature
overall methodology
Overall Methodology
  • Establish program governance
    • Project Team providing overall guidance
    • Steering Committee with representatives from State, local, Federal organizations
  • Retain a consulting firm
    • Via competitive procurement
    • Incorporate best practices
  • Engage stakeholders
    • Interviews and surveys
    • Feedback and reports
federal engineering inc
Federal Engineering, Inc.
  • Nationwide consulting firm
    • Founded in 1983
    • Specializing in state & local governments
    • Emphasis on rural America
  • Diverse technology experience
    • Wired and wireless systems
    • Voice, data, and video
  • Certified independence
fe state psmr projects
FE State PSMR Projects
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Wyoming
fe local psmr projects
FE Local PSMR Projects
  • Counties
    • Contra Costa, California
    • Troupe County, Georgia
    • Campbell County, Wyoming
  • Cities
    • Nashville, Tennessee
    • Virginia Beach, Virginia
    • LaGrange, Georgia
federal engineering philosophy
Federal Engineering Philosophy
  • Driven by user needs
    • Not technology
    • Resist vendor hyperbole
    • One size does not fit all
      • Public safety systems are similar, but…
      • Specific user group needs are unique
  • Economic viability
    • Infrastructure sharing
    • Cost of replacement/upgrade/maintenance
    • Ideal systems rarely if ever get built
phase i understanding needs
Phase I – Understanding Needs
  • FEClientNet web based survey
    • Cast a wide net
    • Collect information on today’s systems
    • 72 diverse groups responded
  • Numerous personal interviews
    • Group meetings
    • Individual agency interviews
    • Site visits
  • Defined short and long term needs
    • Infrastructure, coverage, interoperability
    • Shortfalls in today’s systems
phase ii develop recommendations
Phase II – Develop Recommendations
  • Issued a Request for Information
    • Latest technical and pricing info
    • Six vendors responded
  • Synthesized three viable alternatives
    • VHF, and 800 MHz, and “do-nothing”
    • Follow-up surveys to refine database and determine impact of do-nothing approach
  • Analyzed the alternatives
    • Meet requirements
    • Technical benefits and lifecycle costs
alternatives determined not viable
Alternatives Determined Not Viable
  • VHF low band
    • High interference and skip
    • No new development and no APCO Project 25
  • 220 MHz narrowband
    • Low power and limited coverage
    • Very limited PS features
    • Poor performance typical of AM
  • UHF
    • Less coverage to VHF hi-band
    • Low data rates
alternatives determined not viable1
Alternatives Determined Not Viable
  • 700 MHz
    • Limited equipment available today
    • Coverage inferior to VHF (similar to 800 MHz)
  • 900 MHz
    • Limited range and poor coverage
    • Primarily used for data
    • Non-licensed therefore no protection
  • 4.9 GHz
    • Very limited range
    • Few manufacturers
    • Primarily intended for fixed data
other technologies rejected
Other Technologies Rejected
  • Non-trunked systems
    • Limited channel sharing
    • No virtual talk groups
    • No channel efficiencies
    • No backup channels
  • Cellular
    • High usage costs
    • Incomplete statewide coverage (at carrier’s discretion)
    • Lack of availability during crisis
    • Limited broadcast capability
other technologies rejected1
Other Technologies Rejected
  • Satellite
    • Very high usage costs
    • Limited PS features
  • Software defined radios
    • Future technology projected to be expensive
    • Not needed if WyoLink is adopted
  • Cross-patching
    • Does not address FCC narrowband issue
    • Lacks modern features
    • Operationally cumbersome
    • Limited interconnect capacity
extensive coverage analyses
Extensive Coverage Analyses
  • Modeled coverage of over 550 State, local, and Federal Government tower sites
  • Ran analyses at both VHF and 800 MHz
    • Both mobile and portables
    • Rural and city
  • Most cost effective solution
    • 57 existing and planned WyDOT sites
    • Interconnected via upgraded WyDOT microwave
800 mhz vs vhf considerations
800 MHz vs VHF Considerations
  • Dispelling the myths
    • Both frequency bands can be engineered for the same performance
    • Identical features are available in both frequency bands
    • In-building coverage can be designed to be the same for both frequencies
  • The real issues are
    • Capacity requirements
    • Availability of frequencies
    • Interoperability with existing systems
    • Practical economics
recommended alternative
Recommended Alternative
  • VHF (150 MHz) frequency band
    • Coverage increase from 83% to 94%
    • Maximizes existing infrastructure
    • Sufficient frequencies available
    • 20 additional voting receiver sites to improve

portable coverage

  • P25 digital trunked radios
    • 5,000 mobiles; 6,300 portables
  • Casper and Cheyenne
    • Interoperability being addressed
    • Costs included in WyoLink
major system features
Major System Features
  • Full interoperability across all participating State, local, and Federal agencies
    • existing Casper & Cheyenne 800 MHz systems
    • "mutual aid" functionality for those who may wait or decline to participate in WyoLink
  • Improved statewide mobile coverage from 83% to 94%
  • Full compatibility with the current and emerging APCO standards
major system features cont d
Major System Features (cont’d)
  • State-of-the art technology
    • digital radios
    • trunking to improve efficiently and talk groups
    • encryption, low-speed data, and AVL as needed
  • Increased capacity through the addition of new channels
  • Improved reliability and disaster recovery capabilities
  • Replacement of aging radio infrastructure and the addition of multiple control points
alternatives rejected
Alternatives Rejected
  • 800 MHz
    • Would require over 200 sites to achieve the same coverage
    • Interference problems coming to Wyoming
    • More expensive with limited benefit
  • Do-nothing
    • Significantly more expense
    • Fosters growing interoperability problems
    • Reduce ability for technology refresh
a plan to build on
A Plan to Build On
  • This is not just another study
    • Provides analysis of best alternatives
    • Recommends a viable solution
  • Understands and resolves differing user needs
  • Leverages existing State and local assets where feasible
  • Fosters stakeholder support
  • Will result in reduced life cycle costs
for more information contact
For More Information Contact

Ronald F. Bosco

Federal Engineering, Inc.

10600 Arrowhead Drive

Fairfax, VA 22030

703-359-8200

Rbosco@fedeng.com