ACMA draft instructions for 400Mhz Trunking

[centralcoastscanman]

This is all good and well, sticking these services on GRN, but there are reasons why they won't. One is state wide compatibility. The feds, if they have to say follow a suspect across state borders will have no coms with GRN to say Victoria or QLD. So they won't go for this.
Other issues with GRN come down to priorities on trunk sites, specially during a disaster event, such as a major bush fire. The RFS found this out at the last major bus fires in Sydney when the Ambulance, who rightly so have priority over pretty much all else, were getting locked out on sites during major fire incidents. This of course could be very dangerous to an RFS unit if in the heat of the moment they get locked out.
And while the NOC can change priorities of agencies if need be, this does not always happen fast enough.
This is one reason why many agencies won't use GRN full time.

Very easy solution to the priority problem soupbones, add more channels to each site so have a minimum of 15 freq's per site regardless of location would probly work and still save money over each individual agency having their own networks running.

[BerryV]

Very easy solution to the priority problem soupbones, add more channels to each site so have a minimum of 15 freq's per site regardless of location would probly work and still save money over each individual agency having their own networks running.

you bet, remove all the double up, do 15-20 chan per site in metro areas. still much cheaper that what is going on now

[centralcoastscanman]

well that was my educated guess, probly could be a tad higher and still be cheaper than whats going on now

[ivahri]

This is all good and well, sticking these services on GRN, but there are reasons why they won't. One is state wide compatibility. The feds, if they have to say follow a suspect across state borders will have no coms with GRN to say Victoria or QLD. So they won't go for this.
Other issues with GRN come down to priorities on trunk sites, specially during a disaster event, such as a major bush fire. The RFS found this out at the last major bus fires in Sydney when the Ambulance, who rightly so have priority over pretty much all else, were getting locked out on sites during major fire incidents. This of course could be very dangerous to an RFS unit if in the heat of the moment they get locked out.
And while the NOC can change priorities of agencies if need be, this does not always happen fast enough.
This is one reason why many agencies won't use GRN full time.

There's a few furphies in that one!

First, what state interoperability? Other than the example you gave very few agencies have interstate interoperability. That has nothing to do with trunking or non-trunking, just that each state up till now has done their own thing & to different timetables. There is now serious talk of at least the east coast between Brisbane & Melbourne and across to Adelaide having co-ordinated trunking networks with shared access arrangements (ie. talkgroups & IDs available & valid on multiple networks). It can be done.

Priority is the biggest beat up of all. First, I doubt you aren't aware that emergency response agencies in NSW already have an equal, higher priority than other agencies. Relative priority settings has rarely been the problem, but agency mismanagement of talkgroups HAS. RFS were the worst culprit splitting up in to excessive numbers of small talkgroups just when resources are the most scarce. That was a user issue, not the network. So how would they manage on a single channel PMR? Simple, they wouldn't. This issue is one of those dragged out of the bag everytime the anti-GRN crowd think they are about to get dragged in to the 21st century.

And lastly do you think that other agencies would jeopardise their crews? Or do you think the RFS is so visionary & caring for their staff that they recognise an issue that the others don't? I think the word for that is delusion... No, the answer is that they don't want to share- and they want ridiculous amounts of $$$ at the expense of other agencies so that they can keep doing it. Personally I'd prefer to keep the RFS as far away from the GRN as possible... because they can't be trusted to use it properly when they are on it. But then the state is broke & I hate seeing this agency (and NP&WS) get treated like a sacred cow while the rest suffer. My opinions only as always!

Cheers,


Richard

[ivahri]

Very easy solution to the priority problem soupbones, add more channels to each site so have a minimum of 15 freq's per site regardless of location would probly work and still save money over each individual agency having their own networks running.

you bet, remove all the double up, do 15-20 chan per site in metro areas. still much cheaper that what is going on now

Hi BerryV,

I generally agree with you but trunking into many areas like west of Griffith just is not cost effective. Your plan only looks at spectrum cost, not the cost of links. Links are a massive cost & a massive risk if not designed & funded properly. The cost of PMR links is significantly less, per voice channel, than compared with P25 trunking that requires links with latency of a few millisecs. That means lots of links, lots of sites, and lots of dollars because the infrastructure is rarely there.

Cheers,

Richard

[ivahri]

I can't wait until the next series of radios get released. Simoco SRM9000's fitted with Next G sim cards. if no trunked radio coverage, the radio just flicks over to the mobile network.

So you would scrap all of the PMR systems and just use NextG outside of the GRN footprint?

Well good luck... I hope you aren't working for an emergency service as 1:1 comms is a major backward step from the all informed comms that PMR provides.

And I'd love to see the carriers provide the coverage needed in Kosciusko National Park... at 800MHz? Good luck... Barry Way, Elliott Way, Alpine Way covered at 800MHz- neat trick when it happens! I reckon I might be able to do it at 400MHz but even then it would be a challenge but 800MHz? With low powered phones & glass mount antennas? Ho Ho Ho!

Cheers,


Richard

[soupbones]

First, what state interoperability? Other than the example you gave very few agencies have interstate interoperability. That has nothing to do with trunking or non-trunking, just that each state up till now has done their own thing & to different timetables. There is now serious talk of at least the east coast between Brisbane & Melbourne and across to Adelaide having co-ordinated trunking networks with shared access arrangements (ie. talkgroups & IDs available & valid on multiple networks). It can be done.

'


Please read my post again. I never once stated there was such a thing as state interoperability, nor did I say it was not possible. In fact, I think I said that at the moment, this was an issue because there is no state interoperability. Yes, thats what I stated.

[BerryV]

I can't wait until the next series of radios get released. Simoco SRM9000's fitted with Next G sim cards. if no trunked radio coverage, the radio just flicks over to the mobile network.

So you would scrap all of the PMR systems and just use NextG outside of the GRN footprint?

Well good luck... I hope you aren't working for an emergency service as 1:1 comms is a major backward step from the all informed comms that PMR provides.

And I'd love to see the carriers provide the coverage needed in Kosciusko National Park... at 800MHz? Good luck... Barry Way, Elliott Way, Alpine Way covered at 800MHz- neat trick when it happens! I reckon I might be able to do it at 400MHz but even then it would be a challenge but 800MHz? With low powered phones & glass mount antennas? Ho Ho Ho!

Cheers,


Richard

Richard, I'm not suggesting to just use NextG as primary outside coverage. Just simply another option in the radio that if no network is available comms are not lost.

And to your point about links. There is a PDF showing all the current duplication of service on the ACMA site. I am sure you have seen it. I'll find it and post.it will be cheaper to combine and work from there.

I understand your view on RFS, but that's expected from a NSW fire person

[Bigfella237]

~
And lastly do you think that other agencies would jeopardise their crews? Or do you think the RFS is so visionary & caring for their staff that they recognise an issue that the others don't? I think the word for that is delusion... No, the answer is that they don't want to share- and they want ridiculous amounts of $$$ at the expense of other agencies so that they can keep doing it. Personally I'd prefer to keep the RFS as far away from the GRN as possible... because they can't be trusted to use it properly when they are on it. But then the state is broke & I hate seeing this agency (and NP&WS) get treated like a sacred cow while the rest suffer. My opinions only as always!

Cheers,
Richard

Hahaha... I've never yet met a townie that didn't hate the bushies... and vice-versa... although personally it's got me beat why in either case? (Something akin to the Hatfields and the McCoys me thinks...)

Anyway, two points:

1) The RFS would say you've got the $$$ thing backwards Richard, they claim it's too expensive to be on the GRN? Somebody do the math here... how much is it per radio per month times 4000 odd radios to have access to the GRN?

The answer to this problem is of course, don't charge anybody to use the GRN! I have never been able to see the point in one NSW government department paying another NSW government department for anything... THEY'RE ALL THE NSW GOVERNMENT! The only thing this effectively does is create thousands of jobs for bean-counters that in itself costs, you guessed it, the NSW government!

and

2) There are serious problems with expecting agencies who's primary areas of operation are way out in the middle of the bush to use a radio network that's based around the major highway system in country NSW.

Maybe it's just the country boy in me but if you've ever done any 4WDing you will know that as soon as you get off the beaten track, especially in amongst the coastal ranges, you can kiss sweet goodbye to any form of mainstream communication (with the obvious exception of satellite phones) and GRN reception is no exception. IMO, that is the main reason you will never get NPWS & RFS to commit 100% to the GRN, which BTW, is the same reason the NSW Police Force won't commit to it, the GRN simply cannot provide the coverage of a PMR network across the entirety of the state.

That's my 2c anyway...

Andrew

[BerryV]

~
And lastly do you think that other agencies would jeopardize their crews? Or do you think the RFS is so visionary & caring for their staff that they recognize an issue that the others don't? I think the word for that is delusion... No, the answer is that they don't want to share- and they want ridiculous amounts of $$$ at the expense of other agencies so that they can keep doing it. Personally I'd prefer to keep the RFS as far away from the GRN as possible... because they can't be trusted to use it properly when they are on it. But then the state is broke & I hate seeing this agency (and NP&WS) get treated like a sacred cow while the rest suffer. My opinions only as always!

Cheers,
Richard

Hahaha... I've never yet met a townie that didn't hate the bushies... and vice-versa... although personally it's got me beat why in either case? (Something akin to the Hatfields and the McCoys me thinks...)

Anyway, two points:

1) The RFS would say you've got the $$$ thing backwards Richard, they claim it's too expensive to be on the GRN? Somebody do the math here... how much is it per radio per month times 4000 odd radios to have access to the GRN?

The answer to this problem is of course, don't charge anybody to use the GRN! I have never been able to see the point in one NSW government department paying another NSW government department for anything... THEY'RE ALL THE NSW GOVERNMENT! The only thing this effectively does is create thousands of jobs for bean-counters that in itself costs, you guessed it, the NSW government!

and

2) There are serious problems with expecting agencies who's primary areas of operation are way out in the middle of the bush to use a radio network that's based around the major highway system in country NSW.

Maybe it's just the country boy in me but if you've ever done any 4WDing you will know that as soon as you get off the beaten track, especially in amongst the coastal ranges, you can kiss sweet goodbye to any form of mainstream communication (with the obvious exception of satellite phones) and GRN reception is no exception. IMO, that is the main reason you will never get NPWS & RFS to commit 100% to the GRN, which BTW, is the same reason the NSW Police Force won't commit to it, the GRN simply cannot provide the coverage of a PMR network across the entirety of the state.

That's my 2c anyway...

Andrew

Andrew, forget adding NSWP to the picture, they are playing a different game. (i.e. my aerial is longer than yours in the locker room) etc. They have already cracked the kettle Don't believe me, got for a trip to a couple locations in sydney and watch how many radios affiliate with the network you can guess who they all are by the location.

NPWS + RFS just need a kick in the arse, we are 1 govt, somebody needs to take control of the situation and thump the fist on the table and say bullshit when someone tries to produce crap. lets contract woolworths to do the negotiating, from what the media/talk says, they are the best in the business

Its called the GRN for a reason. ALL govt should be on there. spec it correctly, all major town councils should also have a part in it(either directly or via linking). i.e. a small town = 3 channel site for police and fire/ambo

My idea(get the guns out ivahri)
1 x Control center in sydney (Pol, Fire, Ambo) all on GRN.
2. RFS/SES/st john run by a separate command of the same status of those above located in the same building
3. All radios of EVERY agency able to state wide access analogue and digital p25 channels of the others.(i.e. lo es comm)
4. All links pointing back here to this location(plus the disaster site covertly placed somewhere else, even in the bush if need be)
5. All local councils on the net and anybody else on govt business

Run a separate "GRN" hire section(similar to now just relaxed). Council related groups spend massive amounts on hire gear, this could be pooled gear. I know of a council that spent $2410 on hire radios for less than one week for a youth event). just imagine they could actually talk with the 20+ police on foot around the venue. cost/life savings instantly

SA+NSW+VIC GRN are already linked, we have proved that several times in the past. users that require access could get granted it on a adhoc basis. i.e. in the furure you call a 1800 number or jump onto a talkgroup and request radio access to another zone you are going in, or if pre-approved, your GPS, flicks the radio over

My local council spent in excess of $139k on "radio equipment" last year. considering they are running tait VHF for garbage trucks I don't know what the hell they spent it on but I sure hope its a decked out comms bus.

Fed govt would strip all excess tax payers network $$ into one pool, spend it once. not all this incompatible gear. '' then sell the excess spectrum

Imagine the bus doing cityrail deployment over the weekend been able to talk directly to cityrail staff . Its a hole of business cost reduction(1 operator not needed)

Crazy, Crazy, p.s. ivahri would not agree to this as he would be out of a job

Just for a second think about this, all local, state, fed govt's no longer use their set frequencies(that mostly were not used at every 40% of cap anyway). they all worked on the 1 network. HUGE cost savings here, power to talk to IP link business, 1 link for sites etc etc.

radios that could be "sold" to another section when an upgrade is made (immediate cost saving for a perfect working radio going into a garbage truck)