Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
While reading another thread about spectrum and emergency comms, a
thought came to me. Lessee if it makes sense. Given that: 1. Spectrum is a finite resourece 2. Emergency comms (this term is used generically) is always interested in trying to get more of that spectrum 3. One of the major shortcomings of present day systems is lack of communications between the different systems in an area. The cell phone industry deals with access to limited spectrum all the time. Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. Even in our area we have a 10 year old trunking system that is going to have to be replaced because it isn't working properly. One that was supposed to last for 20 years. But a cellular type approach might just work well for them. Before anyone thinks I'm bonkers, I'm not talking about using cell phones, just the type of compression/time sharing. Now interopability is not necessarily so difficult. This is just first thought conjecture, possibly impossible, so feel free to rip into it. - 73 d eMike N3LI - |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:10:07 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. Welcome to the proposed world of 700 MHz. See my earlier posting about why 700 MHz won't work at the present time and may even not be suitable in the future. Even in our area we have a 10 year old trunking system that is going to have to be replaced because it isn't working properly. One that was supposed to last for 20 years. If it is an 800 MHz system, I can understand it. Planned obsolescence appears to be designed into those systems by the Majority Manufacturer. Our major clients, however, are using UHF and T-Band trunking systems of the same vintage - by the same manufacturer in most cases - and they are working just fine. The only changes that have to be made are adding more channels because the growth of population in the served area(s) putting more demand on services than was forecast. As far as "working properly" - that's the kind of things we fix. Relevance to Ham Radio -- as the Public Safety systems expand, the wise agency will increase the commitment to Ham Radio EmComm backup as a partner, not as a competitor. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 28, 6:10 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
1. Spectrum is a finite resourece Well, I suppose it is if you are limited to the technically *useable* spectrum space. Physically though, it's pretty much unlimited. 2. Emergency comms (this term is used generically) is always interested in trying to get more of that spectrum As are all types of "services". Aircraft, Cell phone, Broadcast etc all would love additional space. 3. One of the major shortcomings of present day systems is lack of communications between the different systems in an area. This is an interoperability issue usually. It's not that the technology isn't available to make it all play together, it's that such infrastructure is expensive and the investment in the current stuff is pretty big. The planning for integration of these systems is not easy either. The biggest problem is getting every user to agree to support a system that they don't "control" and be willing to buy new equipment when what they have serves their needs just fine for now. The cell phone industry deals with access to limited spectrum all the tim e. Using a standard set of protocols, significant planning costs, and very expensive infrastructure behind each of those cell towers you see (and many that you don't.) Just be aware that even the cell industry has it's problems with interpretability, they usually push a lot of complexity into the handset which in real terms starts to get pretty expensive. You may not see the full costs because folks normally don't pay full price for the handset. The cell companies pay most of the costs, then make it up over time from the monthly fees. They also spend a lot of time and money putting up antennas, running around with receivers and doing survey work. Not to mention that they don’t cover 100% of everywhere. Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. Well, cell operations suffer from being heavily dependant on central control points and a host of infrastructure that you may not notice. They are quite complex and would be very subject to outages caused by long term power disruptions or flooding. All the things Katrina provided in vast amounts. But a cellular type approach might just work well for them. Before anyone thinks I'm bonkers, I'm not talking about using cell phones, just the type of compression/time sharing. Trunking is a lot like the cell phones of old. But you may be right that a move to more spectrum friendly technology would be a good thing. The issue becomes getting everybody to play in the same field so interoperability is possible. Now interopability is not necessarily so difficult. But it is, unless you plan for it. The solutions the cell phone industry was forced into are very expensive, complex and difficult to maintain compared to your standard analog repeater. Moving to digital transmission formats and frequency sharing would likely make this all the more difficult and costly and I don't see your local fire department or police force switching to some new system just because it integrates easily to other systems they might need to operate with for some hypothetical situation. For your smaller cities, the cost alone will pretty much preclude an upgrade. I think Ham Radio offers quite the helping hand in situations where the ability to interoperate is needed. As an ad hoc emergency communications service ham radio shines. Where else can you get free radio equipment and trained operators to show up at the same time? -= Bob =- |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: While reading another thread about spectrum and emergency comms, a thought came to me. Lessee if it makes sense. Given that: 1. Spectrum is a finite resourece 2. Emergency comms (this term is used generically) is always interested in trying to get more of that spectrum 3. One of the major shortcomings of present day systems is lack of communications between the different systems in an area. The cell phone industry deals with access to limited spectrum all the time. Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. Even in our area we have a 10 year old trunking system that is going to have to be replaced because it isn't working properly. One that was supposed to last for 20 years. But a cellular type approach might just work well for them. Before anyone thinks I'm bonkers, I'm not talking about using cell phones, just the type of compression/time sharing. Now interopability is not necessarily so difficult. This is just first thought conjecture, possibly impossible, so feel free to rip into it. - 73 d eMike N3LI - The one thing that MOST folks seem to forget about EmComms is, that "SOMETHING" caused the EmComm System to be activated, over the standard regular variety PublicService Comms, and that same something that is distrupting the regular stuff, is very likely, to take out some, if not MOST, of the basic Comms infrastructure, in the effected area. SO, Any EmComm System MUST as a RULE, be self-sufficent, self-powered, and mobile, or at least portable, into the effected area. This is the lesson of 9/11, and Katrina. When the towers went down 998% of the PublicService Comms Major Remote Bases were lost, one, beacuse they were on the Roofs of Towers, and two, because the Telco Infrastructure was in the Basements of the buildings and went off line when they collapsed. Basically the SAME thing happened in Katrina, the Telco infrastructure was Flooded, and offline from the middle of the storm, on, and the winds took out most of the Microwave Links, that backed up the Telco lines. Without such interconnections, operational, Trunked, Cellular, and the like, will NOT Function, PERIOD. What does function, is VHF & UHF Simplex, VHF & UHF Repeaters that are Self-Contained, Self Powered, including Antennas, that can be placed in Highsites, AFTER the majority of the destruction has already past. Cop Shops with their own Base Stations, powered by their own EmGensets, talking to cars and portables out in the field. EmComm Designed Portable Repeaters including Antennas, and PowerSupplies that can be Airlifted (Choopered) to HighSites in the effected area, once the destruction has slowed or stopped. This is where HAMS can, and do SUPPLY EmComm Capability. They can Bring in the Mobiles and Portables that WILL WORK, without Telco Infrastructure, and can have at the ready Portable HighSite Repeaters that are EmComm Designed, and ready to function, once placed in the effected Area. Public Service/Govt can also have Mobile Command Centers, Mobile EmComm Centers, and Portable EmComm Repeaters that can be activated and placed in strategic pre-planned Sites for their areas of Service. In the EmComms Business, you can only depend on YOUR pre-planned stuff, and sometimes some of that hardware isn't going to function, so then you go to Plan B, which is you do with what IS working, untill you get something better, working. Sometimes that is HOURS away, sometimes that is DAYS away, and in the some cases it is weeks away, and is supplied by the National Guard, if the hardware, isn't already in IRAQ. -- Bruce in alaska add path after fast to reply |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
KC4UAI wrote:
On Jul 28, 6:10 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: 1. Spectrum is a finite resourece Well, I suppose it is if you are limited to the technically *useable* spectrum space. Physically though, it's pretty much unlimited. 2. Emergency comms (this term is used generically) is always interested in trying to get more of that spectrum As are all types of "services". Aircraft, Cell phone, Broadcast etc all would love additional space. 3. One of the major shortcomings of present day systems is lack of communications between the different systems in an area. This is an interoperability issue usually. It's not that the technology isn't available to make it all play together, it's that such infrastructure is expensive and the investment in the current stuff is pretty big. The planning for integration of these systems is not easy either. The biggest problem is getting every user to agree to support a system that they don't "control" and be willing to buy new equipment when what they have serves their needs just fine for now. The cell phone industry deals with access to limited spectrum all the tim e. Using a standard set of protocols, significant planning costs, and very expensive infrastructure behind each of those cell towers you see (and many that you don't.) Just be aware that even the cell industry has it's problems with interpretability, they usually push a lot of complexity into the handset which in real terms starts to get pretty expensive. You may not see the full costs because folks normally don't pay full price for the handset. The cell companies pay most of the costs, then make it up over time from the monthly fees. They also spend a lot of time and money putting up antennas, running around with receivers and doing survey work. Not to mention that they don’t cover 100% of everywhere. I'm not proposing a cellular system as used for telephones. What I am looking at is a compression scheme similar to what is used for cellular. The system would physically resemble a typical repeater system, with a tower, perhaps several with a voting system to pick out the best signal, which is relayed to the main tower, then compressed and sent out Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. Well, cell operations suffer from being heavily dependant on central control points and a host of infrastructure that you may not notice. They are quite complex and would be very subject to outages caused by long term power disruptions or flooding. All the things Katrina provided in vast amounts. Having a system such as I was thinking of would allow for a few towers in a given area, all on high ground, with a lot of backup power. But a cellular type approach might just work well for them. Before anyone thinks I'm bonkers, I'm not talking about using cell phones, just the type of compression/time sharing. Trunking is a lot like the cell phones of old. But you may be right that a move to more spectrum friendly technology would be a good thing. The issue becomes getting everybody to play in the same field so interoperability is possible. On this, we agree. Generally speaking, most systems don't want to budge, or there can be interagency infighting. One of the problems is that while the different emergency teams operate with a high degree of camaraderie within their team, outside groups are often viewed with suspicion. some snippage I think Ham Radio offers quite the helping hand in situations where the ability to interoperate is needed. As an ad hoc emergency communications service ham radio shines. Where else can you get free radio equipment and trained operators to show up at the same time? It's a good resource, for sure. We do tend to eat up all the donuts though! evil grin - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 29, 2:19 pm, KC4UAI wrote:
I think Ham Radio offers quite the helping hand in situations where the ability to interoperate is needed. As an ad hoc emergency communications service ham radio shines. Where else can you get free radio equipment and trained operators to show up at the same time? Oh.. And I'd like to add... At very low cost (pretty much free for the asking). The point is that Ham Radio can help "glue" the various systems together and over come the cost and interoperability isues until such time they can be worked out with new equipment. And by the time we get to that point, there will be a whole new set of features that will make the current crop of communications systems look down right useless. I can see it now.. With an SDR in everybodies hands, interoperability will be a software load away. As it sits, SDR is way to expensive to field for most applications, but that will be changing. -= Bob =- |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In ,
Michael Coslo typed, for some strange, unexplained reason: [snip] : Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system : similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old : fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. : : Even in our area we have a 10 year old trunking system that is going : to have to be replaced because it isn't working properly. One that was : supposed to last for 20 years. : : But a cellular type approach might just work well for them. Before : anyone thinks I'm bonkers, I'm not talking about using cell phones, : just the type of compression/time sharing. "Tetra" - the UK police have been using it for some time. It operates on around 420-430 MHz. The handportable radios can call one another, a central control room or a normal phone number. Some links: http://www.tetra-association.com/ http://www.airwavesolutions.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx Of course all the scaremongers are now claiming the system causes cancer in the same way that mobile phones are supposed to, but that's another issue ;-) http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php http://www.lessradiation.co.uk/?page_id=6 73 Ivor G6URP |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ivor Jones wrote:
In , Michael Coslo typed, for some strange, unexplained reason: Har! love it! [snip] : Is is then a possibility that emergency comms might shift to a system : similar to cell phones? It seems to me that trunking is kind of an old : fashioned idea, and is ripe for replacement. : : Even in our area we have a 10 year old trunking system that is going : to have to be replaced because it isn't working properly. One that was : supposed to last for 20 years. : : But a cellular type approach might just work well for them. Before : anyone thinks I'm bonkers, I'm not talking about using cell phones, : just the type of compression/time sharing. "Tetra" - the UK police have been using it for some time. It operates on around 420-430 MHz. The handportable radios can call one another, a central control room or a normal phone number. Sounds just about right. Some links: http://www.tetra-association.com/ http://www.airwavesolutions.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx Of course all the scaremongers are now claiming the system causes cancer in the same way that mobile phones are supposed to, but that's another issue ;-) http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php http://www.lessradiation.co.uk/?page_id=6 Always interesting! I wonder why the fearmongers picked cancer as the fear agent for Cell phones and RF. I do believe that cell phones have an effect upon humans. But not in the sensationalist way so often given. It isn't ionizing radion, so while it may have heating effects, or perhaps some other obscure effects, runaway cell growth isn't likely. There is no question the user of the device will put themselves in the near field of a RF emitter that pouts out around a watt, up to 4 or so watts. The far field, is not so big of a deal, but the near field is something else. It is my own premise, based on some RF knowledge, some common sense, and personal experience, that overuse of a cell phone causes a person to become stupid. I have been nearly killed by cell phone using drivers enough times to know that something is going on. And I don't completely buy that they are simply distracted. My favorite example is when I was driving out a local road, in a semi rural area. A person in a big SUV comes racing behind me and nearly rear ends me (I was doing 45 in a 40 mph zone) He backs off, and then slows down to maybe 25 mph. I got about a half mile ahead of him. Then he accelerates again, and nearly rear ends me a second time. Then slows again. I then slowed foe a red light, and he gets in the lane to turn. He stops, and yup, there it is - the cell phone. Then he proceeds to drive through the red light. Lots of other cell phone stories, especially on our own failed road, Atherton Street. Suffice it to say, just as it isn't too hard to spot a drunk driver, you can easily id someone using a cell while driving. I'm not sure if the effects are permanent, but given that I've seen people text messaging while driving, I can't help but wonder. Would anyone ever start out thinking that it might be a good idea to look at a tiny phone and punch keys while driving a 3000 pound machine? But I digress. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|