Interoperability vs Interworking

1. Interoperability vsInterworking The Importance of Standards for Interoperability During Major Incidents, Emergencies and Disasters

2. Agenda • Interoperability Definitions & Need • What is Interoperability and what is Interworking • Interoperability Enablers • Levels of Interoperability • Recommendations & Summary TETRA – Poland 2006

3. Interoperability is More Critical than Ever, but What is it? • Many definitions of Interoperability • Technology solutions were easier in the analogue world • Procedural solutions have an impact • Vision of solutions vary by Service • We need to use common language to: • Clarify discussions • Help specify requirements • Separate operating conditions • Optimal Interoperability means using the same technology • Interworking is Interoperability. Right? TETRA – Poland 2006

4. Standards Spectrum Interoperability Planning Practice Planning Practice Critical Interoperability Enablers Willingness TETRA – Poland 2006

5. What is Interoperability – to You? • Cross Border – the ability to roam to neighboring network • Cross Service – the ability to cooperate during incidents • Ability to use terminals from multiple and competing vendors What is Interworking – is that all you want? • Control Room patching • Cross-connect technologies • Gateway Interfaces TETRA – Poland 2006

6. Public Protectors R R R ight Time ight Information ight Person Interoperability is About Safety!! TETRA – Poland 2006

7. Disasters have regrettably often been Major Motivators for Interoperability Planning • Norway • Train accident in Asta, January 2000 followed several marine accidents • Sweden • Disco Fire & EU Summit in Gothenburg • United Kingdom • Hillsborough, Clapham, Kings Cross • September 11th attacks were “experienced” worldwide • Interoperability is getting more attention than ever • It is becomming inconceivable to plan for non-interoperability • France • Decission being formalised to force Fire and Health to AcroPol network. • Arguments used are cost saving and need for Interoperability. TETRA – Poland 2006

8. Importance of Interoperability Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001 • Arlington County • City of Alexandria • Fairfax County, VA • DC Fire & EMA • Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority Result: Seamless immediate inter- agency communications with equipment from multiple suppliers “The on scene communications were flawless.”System Manager, Fairfax County, VA TETRA – Poland 2006

9. Key Needs for Public Safety Radio Schemes – USA reviews post 11Sept • Dedicated network • Private calls • Multi-disciplined • Strong resilience • Effective TMO fallback • In-building coverage essential • Talk round (DMO – the ultimate resilience) TETRA – Poland 2006

10. “After each major event in recent history, the most glaring indication of success or failure by responding agencies has been their ability to effectively communicate with each other.” International Association of Chiefs of PoliceIACP TETRA – Poland 2006

11. Levels of Interoperability

12. Method Fit TETRA-Based Shared Systems Best Long-Term Solution System-Specific Roaming (TETRA) Full-featured, Wide Area Short-Term System Modification Gateway (Console Patch) Easily deployed Mutual Aid Channels Simple Short-Term Solutions DMO Swap Radios Time-consuming Interoperability Techniques TETRA – Poland 2006

13. Audio, System data, Emergency ID, control info Audio Only 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 TETRA System Non-Tetra System Gateway TETRA – Poland 2006

14. Gateway does not provide interworking here Gateway provides interworking here 380 MHz TETRA Audio, ID, Emergency PTT, etc. Non-Tetra Audio Only Level 4: Gateway -- Interface Box Requires Overlapping Coverage Gateway TETRA – Poland 2006

15. Level 4: Gateway (Console Patch) • Works Via: Radios talk via link established by dispatcher, unmanned interface box, or mobile apparatus • Advantage: • Moderate cost to implement in addition to network cost • Links different system types or frequency ranges • Disadvantage: • Connected systems must have complementary/overlapping coverage • Console patch is unavailable if control center is not operating • Advanced calling features unavailable to users: dispatch audio only • Reduced channel capacity – what were two independent channel resources are now one talkpath • System management ends at gateway boundary • Not for ad hoc use: pre-planning required on each system for channel crowding procedures and setup TETRA – Poland 2006

16. Method Fit TETRA-Based Shared Systems Best Long-Term Solution System-Specific Roaming (TETRA) Full-featured, Wide Area Short-Term System Modification Gateway (Console Patch) Easily deployed Mutual Aid Channels Simple Short-Term Solutions DMO Swap Radios Time-consuming Interoperability Techniques TETRA – Poland 2006

17. Zone Controller Zone Controller Level 5: System Specific Roaming 380 MHz Site 380 MHz Site 380 MHz Site 380 MHz Site TETRA – Poland 2006

18. Level 5: System Specific Roaming • Works Via: Radios talk to each other via infrastructure or DMO using infrastructure • Advantage: • 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 • Disadvantage: • Additional planning and provisioning required on each system • Requirement for double RF coverage, more towers – and more spectrum • Requirement: • All players adopt TETRA and enjoy competition within the open standards sphere. TETRA – Poland 2006

19. Method Fit TETRA-Based Shared Systems Best Long-Term Solution System-Specific Roaming (TETRA) Full-featured, Wide Area Short-Term System Modification Gateway (Console Patch) Easily deployed Mutual Aid Channels Simple Short-Term Solutions DMO Swap Radios Time-consuming Interoperability Techniques TETRA – Poland 2006

20. Level 6: TETRA-Based Shared System A 380 MHz TETRA Site 380 MHz TETRA Site 380 MHz TETRA Site Zone Controller TETRA – Poland 2006

21. Level 6: Standards-Based Shared Systems • Works Via: All radios built to a standard (TETRA) talk to each other via infrastructure or in DMO • Advantage: • Interoperability at the turn of a dial • Links different vendor systems • “Out of the box” interoperability, simple to set up infrastructure • No console intervention required • All advanced features are available to users • Disadvantage: • Requires equipment to be built to same standard, usually happens via new/upgraded system purchase • Not all vendors build to standard. Interoperability holes are still possible TETRA – Poland 2006

22. Interoperability Basics -- Keep it Simple • Massive Incidents = Massive Stress • Allow your Public Safety Responders to Respond • Plan with your Neighbor’s Neighbors • Massive incidents will require massive response • Direct Interoperable “Everyday” Systems • From Pentagon after 9/11: Use your Interoperability tools regularly TETRA – Poland 2006

23. Recommendations & Summary • Plan for the highest level of Interoperability • Accept nothing less – consider your stakeholders • Public systems are great for communication from/to the public. • TETRA is a high capacity solution and the tool for the Emergency Services Radio Communication TETRA – Poland 2006

24. Thank You! Jeppe.Jepsen@Motorola.com

25. Interoperability is About Safety!! TETRA – Poland 2006

26. Best Applications Inter-? Level Process Benefit Issues • Required Std. Exists (TETRA) • No setup time • Full system features available • Event scale is immaterial • Subscriber operation unchanged • User can stay in touch with home system • Funding for new system • Region must be operating w/std. • Minimal preparation--“out of the box” interoperability • Many—not all—vendors building to standard • Work required to satisfy multiple agency needs—local control TETRA-Based Shared Systems • Small to massive scale events • Urban to rural locations 6 System-Specific Roaming • Connects multiple types of systems • No setup time • Full system features available • Full system range • Small to large scale events • Cross band • Limited response areas • Requires plan/setup & adv. Knowledge of respondents • Depending upon configuration, controller could be costly component with infrequent use 5 • Console/field intervention or other efforts needed to set up on the fly • Patched systems must have complementary coverage • No advanced features, audio only • Multiple systems required • Limits channel resources • Moderate (1 site) range • Users can’t leave home system • Small to moderate scale events (2-4 agencies) • Preplanned events (Concert, sports, etc.) • Connects disparate systems/bands • Can be cost efficient, when systems are in place • Moderate (1-2 site) range Gateway (Console Patch) 4 • Defacto standard—commonly used • Cost efficient • Plan/radio programming req’d • No advanced system features • Radio removed from home system • Limited range, needs infrastructure • Frequency dependent • Requires conv. & trunking in radio • Small to moderate scale events • Unplanned events (Channel plan required in advance) • Works for urban/rural Mutual Aid Channels 3 • Simple to implement • Point-to-point • Direct communication • Cost efficient • Small events (2-3 agencies) • Tactical Coordination • Emergencies only • Limited range • Frequency independent • Requires compatible systems DMO 2 • Small events (2-3 agencies) • Preplanned events with key players coordinating (Concert, sports, etc.) • Product cross-training required • Slow to setup physical exchange • Limited range • W/O talk-around, multiple systems are required • Simple to implement • No administration necessary Swap Radios 1