Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Poll: Is APCO-25 an appropriate technologyfor Pu blic Safety?]

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:35:44 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: John Powell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Poll: Is APCO-25 an appropriate technologyfor Public Safety?

All,

I'd like to offer some historical perspective to Mr. Schmidt's position, as 
well as that of someone directly involved in the process for about 14 years.

Having been at the first Project 25 meeting, and a member of its steering 
Committee since then, spectrum efficiency was only one of the issues that 
has been a driving force, and it was never, in the minds of the user in my 
belief (and this IS a user-run project) the most important issue.  The 
primary issue driving P25 from its inception was making sure that we did 
not again have the problem of three different analog trunking "standards" 
clearly leading to a lack of interoperability and competitive procurement.

An organization called Open Architecture for Public Safety Radio (OARPS) 
was formed by a group of users and primarily General Electric as a 
manufacturer.  OARPS wanted the FCC to mandate a single analog trunking 
standard.  APCO and NASTD joined together in opposition, believing that 
such a significant of 800 trunking systems had been fielded, that 
attempting to implement a standard at that late date (late 1980s) would be 
counterproductive, and instead promoted a new open standard for new 
technology digital systems.  At the same time, the Federal government was 
beginning work on a digital standard and a natural fusion brought all 
parties together.  TIA joined the effort in their critical role as a 
Standards Development Organization.

 From its start, the primary goals from my point of view have been 
interoperability and competitive procurement, and my vote on critical 
issues has always been driven by those two.  The fact is that digital 
technology inherently promoted spectrum efficiency.  Beyond that, as a user 
for nearly 30 years I know that user-friendly equipment is essential if it 
is going to be used.  This is not a 5 bedroom house for a 2 person 
family.  It provides functionality and services that are critical to public 
safety operations in today's complex world.  The incidents our public 
safety officers encounter in the field every day, be they manmade or 
natural, require the best technical solutions we can provide.  And I'll 
tell you that some of the manmade ones are using technology beyond what we 
give those entrusted with our protection.

Our citizens deserve no less than the best we all can give to protect them, 
and not just from our military.  While our country must have a modern 
military force to protect us from perils outside of our border, there are 
very few who would argue that the more direct threat felt by most of us is 
from those within our borders, and protecting us from those peril falls to 
the members of our nearly 50,000 local and state public safety 
agencies.  The fact that we don't have a single public safety 
communications system like you find in European countries is a matter of 
how we choose to govern, and I for one like our system better than any 
other I know of!  Can we do better?  Of course we can and that is what all 
of the efforts of those involved in Project 25 and many other technology 
issues on the front burner today are trying to do.

John Powell

At 08:23 AM 1/21/2003 -0700, Byron Schmidt wrote:
>To All,
>   Interoperability is an aspect of P25 that seems to be the buzzword in this
>transition.  Having said that, I think the original intent of P25 from the
>Feds perspective (Read: FCC, NTIA, Etc.) is to conserve spectrum space.
>Carving up the spectrum space available cannot be accomplished with an
>analog format.  Yeah, it sounds better because it sounds like a human voice,
>and not one that is submerged in 10 feet of water.  Bandwidth considerations
>are driving this train.  So in the conversation(s) about interoperability,
>let's keep in mind why this transition is even taking place...and it isn't
>interoperability.  We have to go there anyway, and there is no option at
>this point.  I would be interested to find out what the various agencies
>feel the transition issues are for you. Cost, simplicity of operation,
>complexity of operation, etc.   I know what they are for us, and
>interoperability is not one of them at this point.  Thanks.
>
>
>
>Byron L. Schmidt, DAFC, GS-11
>Deputy State Director
>CAP-USAF Liaison Office. Idaho
>208-345-8263 - (Voice)
>208-333-8247 - (FAX)
>[email-masked]

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