Subject: [NEXTEL-1] RE: [project25] Poll: Is APCO-25 an appropriate technology forPu blic Safety?

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:28:41 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: John Powell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Poll: Is APCO-25 an appropriate technology forPu blic Safety?

Dan,

I appreciate your point, and in many cases you are correct - but it is then 
analog interoperability.  However, there are a number of federal 
participant operations where those agencies want (or are mandated) to use 
encryption, even if operating on local/state channels.  In particular those 
include drug interdiction and, on the horizon, homeland security.  We have 
had significant discussion in California regarding how to accomplish that, 
and the only common denominator is P25.  The Feds want, and in many cases 
require, local/state participation to be effective.  While they can provide 
radios on their system, they would much prefer not to unless Type I 
encryption is required.  And even if no feds are involved, these kinds of 
operations should NOT be carried on using clear channels by ANY agency, 
thus again leading to P25 as the common denominator.

A very effective solution to the mullti-band problem today is interop 
switches such as the ACU-1000.  Their biggest drawback, and one we hear 
regularly since the Drug Czars office is funding a number of these systems, 
is the inability to support end-to-end digital encryption.  In some cases, 
that negates use of the switch because of the sensitivity of the 
comms.  Fortunately, solutions are on the near horizon via a patch product 
that uses a digital cross-connect buss.  These will drive the need for P25 
even further as agencies on multiple bands develop interim interoperability 
solutions using these products.

John

p.s.  Since we haven't talked in a while, congrats on the new position in 
Montana!

At 01:59 PM 1/15/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>All:
>
>With all the respect I have for Mr. Powell and appreciation of his efforts
>since 1989 with P25, I appreciate his observations offered here.  The State
>of Montana SIEC has adopted P25 for digital interoperability for all these
>very good reasons.
>
>One point was made that I have to comment on:  "digital interoperability ...
>will be ... completely eliminated if you are
>talking about interoperability with Federal agencies."
>
>In my experience, communications interoperations between state, local, and
>federal agencies take place on state/local channels and, in relatively rare
>occasions on federal "systems" with equipment provided by the federal
>agency.  Clearly, we can't expect federal radios to connect into state/local
>digital systems with anything less than P25 CAI, but we're most likely to
>see the bulk interoperations for years to come occur on analog FM - on
>state/local channels.  Nothing in NTIA narrowbanding mandates prevents
>federal agencies from transmitting on wideband or analog channels - licensed
>to state/local agencies.
>
>So, John, your statement taken in context is valid.  Taken out of context,
>some may take it to mean that interoperability with federal agencies
>requires P25.  There are Chicken Littles running around saying just that, so
>beware.
>
>   Dan Hawkins
>   Communications Technology Manager
>   State of Montana

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/