2011 IPART Inquiry into Pricing of GRN Services

[Scotty]

It will hit Police the hardest because they have a long tradition of doing their own thing because in most areas they own the infrastructure. The first question asked before any funds are released will be "why can't you share?". That means shared links, common bases, multicoupled antennas, and common design, managed centrally from the Telco agency.

Sharing makes perfect sense in all regards. I guess the reason the cops have done their own thing in the past is because there hasn’t been an ‘all-in-one’ solution that they could use. As I said before, I’ve got no doubt the police will make the switch – forced or not – the question is how long.

It’s happening and a LOT sooner than 5 years.

I’ve got no doubt it’s happening – but from the points I mentioned I can’t see it in any time the near future. I’ve got no idea how long it takes to built/install/test/implement a GRN site, but even if they only put in 30 extra sites in Sydney, which is likely less than half to one-third of the sites they would need, it’s not something that will happen any time soon.

All radio funding for all agencies should have a drop date. I.e, Don’t move your service over, start taking a funding hit of several million dollars. Duplication of service is typical of union dominated groups. They want to keep control for as long as possible.

That’s the problem though at this stage, the GRN does not have the coverage that the police require. If the current GRN was a duplicate of the current police network I would agree with your statement, but the GRN is still a long way off, and until it’s comparable I can understand why they would be hesitant to change.

[vk2pwsham]

Some might find the ACMA doc interesting.

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/ma ... d_plan.pdf

I just got our licence renewal for the mob I work for (DET - TAFE) and then checked our details on the acma database and found a note attached basically telling us to vacate our frequencies (small very low power LTR with a phone patch which has been switched off, and now just using simplex) by 2015 and to move to the GRN.

[ivahri]

And this is news? Have you read the (past) Premier's Directive? I'm sure the link was posted here so this is the next step... Why does DET need to have its own UHF frequencies? These frequencies are that scarce that I think it is damn irresponsible for such an agency to not be on the GRN.


Richard

[cartman]

The only DET with a LTR system (2 channels) that i know of is or was Granville TAFE .... all the other TAFE run CTCSS


Grant

[Scotty]

These frequencies are that scarce that I think it is damn irresponsible for such an agency to not be on the GRN.

I agree and disagree. It seems a waste of GRN resources and public money to have every Govt body on the GRN, especially when a user runs simplex or a repeater covering a small area, such as a hospital. The cost for these groups to purchase new radios and operate a TG for such a small area would be well beyond what they are paying now, especially if the IPART document re pricing is correct. In fact I would say it's far from irresponsible for a simplex user to remain running a simplex channel as opposed to being on the GRN, a network built for wide area comms.

However I do realise spectrum is being used poorly by some, and this does need to be addressed.

There should be a pool of frequencies available to Govt departments for simplex and small, local area repeaters, without the need and cost of them being on the GRN and paying access costs and wasting channels on sites.

[ivahri]

Hi Scotty,

Well if they are only using the frequency rarely & in a small area (such as DEET) then isn't it better that they share a frequency than have a UHF frequency sitting unused most of the time? I agree that in this case they might be better off just using one of the 5 shared simplex channels- they don't even need to pay for those, just need to talk to the appropriate people. Easily solved!

Some in Health seem to always want to run their own race- how is a hospital any different to a large railway station or a shopping centre? The issue in this case isn't just spectrum, but $ as well. Take John Hunter's TETRA system... There is a finite amount of $ & it is far better shared than for certain "high profile" agencies (Police & Health come to mind) to keep using their political clout to do whatever they like at the expense of the rest of the agencies. Putting trunking in to hospitals benefits not just Health staff, but visiting Police & other emergency service staff that regularly visit there. If you talk to the people higher up in Health they would support that view too.

Cheers,

Richard

[centralcoastscanman]

Hi Scotty,

Well if they are only using the frequency rarely & in a small area (such as DEET) then isn't it better that they share a frequency than have a UHF frequency sitting unused most of the time? I agree that in this case they might be better off just using one of the 5 shared simplex channels- they don't even need to pay for those, just need to talk to the appropriate people. Easily solved!

Some in Health seem to always want to run their own race- how is a hospital any different to a large railway station or a shopping centre? The issue in this case isn't just spectrum, but $ as well. Take John Hunter's TETRA system... There is a finite amount of $ & it is far better shared than for certain "high profile" agencies (Police & Health come to mind) to keep using their political clout to do whatever they like at the expense of the rest of the agencies. Putting trunking in to hospitals benefits not just Health staff, but visiting Police & other emergency service staff that regularly visit there. If you talk to the people higher up in Health they would support that view too.

Cheers,

Richard

Could not agree more with what you have said Richard.... I believe that if each of the bigger hospitals had their own grn repeaters installed it would plug up some of the more harder to fix black spots within the grn plus give NSWFR, NSWAS increased coverage when they are attending incidents at hospitals.
The only reason they have not gone ahead is because of people in finance and security/IT departments wanting to keep their big ego's boosted by running their own system
I've never had the luxury of dealing with people at a DOH level, but its good to see that some within health can see the benefits to other agencies plus the cost savings to their own agency as well...

[Scotty]

Well if they are only using the frequency rarely & in a small area (such as DEET) then isn't it better that they share a frequency than have a UHF frequency sitting unused most of the time? I agree that in this case they might be better off just using one of the 5 shared simplex channels- they don't even need to pay for those, just need to talk to the appropriate people. Easily solved!

I thought you needed to be a subscriber to the GRN to use the GRN simplex channels? If you need to subscribe to the GRN then it wouldn't be worth it. If not, and any Govt Department can use them, then that is certainly one solution. But more than the current 5 channels would be required to service an area the size of Sydney and it's many users, hence my suggestion for a pool of non-GRN frequencies available for Govt department use, such as the requirements for the DEET.

Some in Health seem to always want to run their own race- how is a hospital any different to a large railway station or a shopping centre? The issue in this case isn't just spectrum, but $ as well.<snip>.Take John Hunter's TETRA system...

I think the problem with JHH was that they had major reception problems using the GRN. That and the system didn't meet all their needs. It was likely cheaper for them to install and maintain their own system for a small number of users than install and maintain their own GRN site. Aren't the shopping centre and railway sites installed and maintained by the GRN - not the individual orgs?

I wouldn't say it's about running their own race, more so a cost/benefit from the point of view of the hospital, and installing their own system came out on top - expecially when you factor in the TETRA system replaced their paging/messaging system, allowed (cheaper) telephone interconnect, alarm monitoring, tracking, ect - all which the GRN couldn't provide or provided at a greater cost. I'm pretty sure it was a similar case with North Sydney Council when they set up their own system. It comes down to the GRN not being the best solution for every user.

[Garry]

I dont see how JHH would have had reception problems,, the Lambton site is approx 500m away and the only thing between the tx site and JHH are trees

[ivahri]

Scotty,

No, any agency can use the "GRN" simplex channels with the consent of the licensee (Telco). These channels are just simplex- they aren't part of the network so they are "free" to use. The current 5 channels for low power, low duty operation is fine so long as it is understood that these are shared & that they are used on a "first come, first served" basis. THey aren't used that heavily but there are some inter-agency arrangements in place for a few of them. They still can get simplex channels allocated to them exclusively- but they have to go to Telco to get them.

Are you seriously expecting me to believe that installing a TETRA system was cheaper than an APCO25 trunking system? You have to be kidding me... And as for paging- paging is so cheap to implement that the cost of an APCO25 trunking solution + a single site POCSAG paging base would still be less than what they spent. What you wrote actually makes it worse- if they only have a "small" number of users Tetra is HIDEOUSLY expensive- Tetra becomes economic when you have LOTS of users (India for example). Don't kid a kidder- this was all about being trailblazers, being the first to have a you bute Tetra system- bugger the expense or the lack of compatability. Just a simple case of a few public servants with too much money & power... and too little knowledge.

All this is academic now anyway- they aren't keeping these frequencies no matter how much they scream. I am in the middle of frequency planning as is almost every other agency. We are all in the same boat.

Cheers,

Richard