HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0089.000 2008-2010BRENDA J. FORD
Council Member
District 7 -Central Kona
Phone: (808) 326- 5421
Fax: (808) 329- 4786
E-Mail: bford@co.hawaii.hi.us
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL ~
County of Hawai `i ;-~
KailuaTradeCenter
~~
om ~
~
~
~~'
75-5706 Hanama Place, Suite 109 ~ t
'
~ r'
--~
Kailua-Kong Hawaii 96740 _
.
<`i: ~ ,
r`
~
{
,n...~ -v +
DATE: January 8, 2009 ''r? 3 `.
„i
'~! -~ ~tii
TO: J. Yoshimoto, Chair, ~ %'` o
and Members of the Hawaii County Council "- "~
FROM: Brenda J. Ford, Council Member ~c~Et~.,..,~_ ' V `~
SUBJECT: Presentation by Civil Defense Administrator on the tatus of the Interoperability Radio
System Project
The following information is from the Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment, October
2008:
"The Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP) is funded b}• the
Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) through the Department of Homeland Security to
provide technical assistance to states and urban areas that are applying UASI funds to voice and
data interoperability projects. The goal of the ICTAP program is to enable local public safety
agencies to communicate during incidents. ICTAP works with other federal, state, and local
interoperability efforts to enhance the overall capacity for agencies and individuals to
communicate with one another.
The County of Hawaii has asked ICTAP to provide an engineering review and comment on
information developed to date by Macro Corporation. Given ICTAP schedule constraints, the
review was focused on two documents:
(1) Needs Analysis & Recommendation Report, and
(2) Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report.
Macro has proposed a 700 MHz APCO Project 25 (P25) digital.trunked system with a
combination of simulcast and stand alone RF sites, a 700 MHz High Performance Data (HPD)
system, and a VHF fire alert paging system.
The County of l-Iawaii currently has a VHF analog conventional radio system that is at the end
of its lifecyclc. The County is also concerned about the pending narrow banding of the VHF
public safety band and the associated costs and problems. The County is looking to replace the
coromi Ro: ~/
Ref. To: $ f G
Serving the Interests ojthe People ojOur Island Ref. Date 2 (19
Hawaii County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer
January 8, 2009
Page 2
system to enhance both operability and interoperability on the island and add high speed data
capabilities."
The federally mandated but County-funded interoperability Radio System Project is required to
be operational by January 1, 2013. The previous Council amended the CIP budget with an additional
$89,000,000 to fund this project. We now have 48 months to complete the project. Estimated
completion time: 48 months.
A presentation by Mr. Quince Mento, Civil Defense Administrator, relating to the status of this
critical project would benefit the council and the county in general.
I respectfully request time during the appropriate Committee agenda on February 18, 2009, for
a status report by Mr. Mento.
A report titled Preliminary Technical Assessment for Documentation Developed for the County
Of Hawai `i prepared for the County of Hawaii by the Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program, dated October 2008, is attached.
Att.
BF/dkr
mtarovarabla !.
CommuNUHona
Prepared for Hawaii County, Hawaii
T Iwl
Asalstann
vropram
ICTAP-H IHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment
October 2008
Preliminary Technical Assessment for Documentation
Developed for the County Of Hawaii
Further Distribution Authorization Requests shall be referred to the
Commanding Officer, Space and Naval Wartare Systems Center, San Diego, Code 55450,
San Diego, California 92152, or higher DoD authority.
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment /CTAP-HIHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... ..1
1.2 New System Requirements ................................................................................................. ..1
2. Voice Communications .................................................................................................. ..2
2.1 Public Safety Frequency Bands Comparison ..................................................................... ..2
2.1.1 VHF, 700 and 800 MHz Frequency Licensing .............................:.................................. .. 3
2.1.2 RF Coverage Comparison .............................................................................................. ..4
2.2 Simulcast Modulation .......................................................................................................... ..8
2.3 I nteroperability ..................................................................................................................... .. 8
2.4 Project 25 Interoperability ................................................................................................... .. 9
2.5 P25 Subscriber Units .......................................................................................................... 10
2.6 Voice Communications Recommendations ........................................................................ 11
3. Site Selection ................................................................................................................... 13
4. Microwave System .......................................................................................................... 13
5. High Performance Data (HPD) ....................................................................................... 14
6. VHF -Fire Alert Paging .................................................................................................. 15
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 15
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Talk-out Coverage, 861 MHz ................................................................................. ..5
Figure 2: Talk-out Coverage, 769 MHz ................................................................................. ..6
Figure 3: Talk-out Coverage, 155 MHz ................................................................................. ..7
List of Tables
Table 1: Bounded Area Coverage ...........................................................................................8
October 2008
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment
1. Introduction
/CTAP-H/HA-PR6ASSESS-00l-RO
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)
implements programs designed to enhance the preparedness of state and local governments and
agencies to effectively prevent, respond to, and recover from major terrorist incidents. The Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants are provided to frst responders and public safety officials in
order to secure critical infrastructure and respond to acts of terrorism in urban areas across the
nation. UASI funds are used to address unique equipment, training, planning and exercise needs of
large, high-threat urban areas, including needs for interoperable communications between local,
state, and federal first responders and public safety officials.
The Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP) is funded by OEC to
provide technical assistance to states and urban areas that are applying UASI funds to voice and
data interoperability projects. The goal of the ICTAP program is to enable local public safety agencies
to communicate during incidents. ICTAP works with other federal, state, and local interoperability
efforts to enhance the overall capacity for agencies and individuals to communicate with one another.
The County of Hawaii has asked ICTAP to provide an engineering review and comment on
information developed to date by Macro Corporation. Given ICTAP schedule constraints, the review
was focused on two documents: (1) Needs Analysis & Recommendation Report and (2) Conceptual
Design Analysis & Recommendation Report. Macro has proposed a 700 MHz APCO Project 25 (P25)
digital trunked system with a combination of simulcast and stand alone RF sites, a 700 MHz High
Pertormance Data (HPD) system, and a VHF fire alert paging system.
The County of Hawaii currently has a VHF analog conventional radio system that is at the end of its
lifecycle. The County is also concerned about the pending narrow banding of the VHF public safety
band and the associated costs and problems. The County is looking to replace the system to
enhance both operability and interoperability on the island and add high speed data capabilities.
ICTAP has been asked to provide a high level report giving general feedback and guidance on the
two Macro Corp. reports. Topics include: choice of frequency band, FCC licensing, RF propagation
characteristics, simulcast modulation, interoperability, P25, site selection, microwave connectivity and
capacity, High Pertormance Data, and VHF Fire Alert.
1.1 Background
The following list includes highlights on the current County Of Hawaii radio systems:
Four separate radio systems serving the; Police, Fire, Local Government and Water
o Motorola conventional VHF radio systems
0 25 KHz Wideband/Analog
0 17 tower locations
0 12 VHF Channels
State Department Of Transportation (DoT) Airports Division -Motorola 800 MHz proprietary
trunked system
State Sherriff -Conventional 800 MHz system
1.2 New System Requirements
The new communications system for the County of Hawaii should have as a minimum the following
requirements:
Standards based Project 25 digital trunked communications system serving all public safety
and service entities.
October 2008
Hawaii Pre/iminary Technical Assessmen!
• ~/OICe SeNices
o Encryptiori
o Talkgroup calls
o Emergency call/notification
o UserlD
• Medium Speed Data Service
• Direct interoperability with neighboring agencies
• Improved coverage
o Island wide
o In-building
2. Voice Communications
/CTAP-HUHA-PRRASSESS00/-RO
The existing radio system is a wideband (25 KHz) analog conventional radio system: To re-place or
upgrade this system today it is virtually a requirement to move to digital technology for product
supportability. Trunking is essential to provide spectrum efficiency for a system with this many users.
There remain only two viable options: install a digital trunked system that utilizes a manufacturer's
proprietary technology, or use a standards based system. The standards based system in the USA is
P25.
We strongly suggest a P25 system to all agencies that they support and we are in complete
concurrence with the Macro recommendation of a P25 system. However, we have a few concerns
and comments which follow.
2.1 Public Safety Frequency Bands Comparison
The four major public safety frequency bands in the U.S. are: VHF (150-174 MHz), UHF (421-512
MHz), 700 (769-775 and 799-805 MHz) and the 800 band (806-824, 806-816 after rebanding, and
851-869, 851-861 after rebanding, MHz). Given the close proximity of the 700 MHz and 800 MHz
bands, they are often referred to as a single band (700/800 MHz). In fact, most modern radios have
the capability to operate in the entire 700/800 MHz band.
Through discussions with island representatives, (CTAP has learned that the County Of Hawaii is
considering the 700/80l) band for their new system because it has the potential to provide
interoperability with present radio systems in the adjacent counties and the proposed P25 700 MHz
system that the State is to install. Although a 700/800 MHz would have some advantages, (CTAP
suggests the County also consider the VHF band also since it has the potential to provide coverage
using less RF sites due to its propagation characteristics. ACounty VHF system would provide the
possibility of direct interoperability with the federal agencies that use VHF such as the National Park
Service. Given these facts, the following section will compare VHF, 700 and 800.
The County mentioned that a major deciding factor to move to a 700/800 MHz system was the desire
to have interoperability with neighboring counties and their respective users that currently use 800
MHz systems. Therefore, if VHF is to be considered, it's important to note that in the next year or two,
several radio manufacturers will be offering "multi-band" radios which will not only operate in the
700/800 MHz band, but in the VHF/700/800 bands, UHF/700/800 bands or across all four. These
radios would be useful when trying to establish interoperability with users of disparate frequency
October 2008
Nawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment
lCTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-00/-RO
bands using a single radio. It would not, however, help users migrating onto the County of Hawaii's
system if they do not operate in the same frequency band.
2.1.1 VHF, 700 and 800 MHz Frequency Licensing
Frequency licensing for the VHF, 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands are different. Four aspects of those
differences are discussed below: spectrum efficiency, analog versus digital modulation, band
reconfiguration and channel spacing.
Spectrum efficiency: In the 800 MHz band, the spectrum efficiency required by the FCC is one
voice path per 25 kHz. In the VHF and 700 MHz band the required efficiency is currently one voice
path per 12.5 kHz with a FCC mandate to transition to one voice path per 6.25 kHz. In the 700 MHz
band, new systems going in service after December 31, 2014 must use 6.25 kHz efficiency.
All 700 MHz systems, including pre-existing systems, must be converted by December 31, 2017. It is
uncertain if 700 MHz equipment procured today, intended to operate using 12.5 kHz voice paths, will
be capable of operating at 6.25 kHz without upgrades, modifications or even replacements. ICTAP
recommends inquiring about this from any potential manufacturer to address long term operation of
the equipment. The FCC has not set a date for when VHF systems must operate with 6.25 kHz
efficiency but have stated they will designate a date.
From the spectrum efficiency aspect, the 800 MHz band is generally the preferred band in areas
which have a sufficient number of available 800 MHz channels because the system operator is not
facing a mandatory change in the system's operation. Many areas do not have the luxury of sufficient
channels as the 800 MHz band is highly congested. In the future, the FCC may dictate better
spectrum efficiency (more voice paths in less kHz) for the 800 MHz band. If they do, their historical
record indicates that they will allow ample time for system operators to use their present system to
obsolescence before they have to migrate.
Analog versus digital modulation: In the VHF and 800 MHz bands, either analog or digital voice
modulation is permitted. The interoperability channels must use analog voice. In the 700 MHz band,
digital voice is the primary mode with analog allowed only on a secondary basis. The interoperability
channels of the 700 MHz band are specified to use Project 25 voice, that is, digital voice modulation.
Recently the quality and intelligibility of digital voice has been found lacking for some extreme
conditions such as fire ground operations with high background noise. Some public safety entities
have opted to continue to use analog or, at least, have an analog option available for extreme
circumstances. This issue is being addressed by a P25 standards development working group and
other interested organizations. Some enhancements have been made to the P25 vocoder (the device
that converts voice between digital and analog) that has improved the voice quality but more needs to
be done. To determine a solution the P25 working group is looking at all aspects of the voice system
including improved types and locations of microphones and speakers.
Band configuration: The 800 MHz band is undergoing a comprehensive reconfiguration (rebanding)
to reduce the interference due to cellular type systems. The only part of the band that is not changing
frequency is the so-called interleaved portion, that is, base transmitter frequencies in the range from
854.75 to 860 MHz. The 700 MHz band is also being reconfigured. However, since there are very few
users in this band and since only half the band is being reconfigured, this affects a much smaller
number of users.
The VHF band lacks configuration; there are not separate, FCC-defined bands for base receive and
base transmit, with a separation between the bands for isolation. This lack of configuration
complicates VHF system design because extra care has to be taken when choosing frequencies to
avoid self-interference. In addition, the VHF band generally has fewer frequencies available for public
safety. Despite these problems several state-wide VHF systems (Virginia, Montana, Wisconsin and
Wyoming) have been either deployed or are in the process of being deployed. Several of these
systems were able to obtain sufficient frequencies by augmenting the public safety frequencies from
October 2008
Hmvaii Preliminary Technical Assessment (CTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
FCC Part 90 frequencies with FCC Part 22 (paging and radio-telephone) frequencies and frequencies
normally allocated for the exclusive use of federal agencies. The implementation of these large
systems proves that VHF is a viable alternative for amulti-site system.
Channel spacing: In the 800 MHz band, the channel spacing is 25 kHz except for the NPSPAC
porfion1 of the band where the channel spacing is 12.5 kHz. In order to achieve this spacing, the
permitted bandwidth of the voice modulation is less than in the other portions of the 800 MHz band.
Geographic spacing is employed between adjacent channels to reduce the interterence from signals
that are separated by only 12.5 kHz. Due to the decreased bandwidth of the modulation in the
NPSPAC portion of the band, performance could be lower than in the other portions of the band, at
least for analog voice modulation.
In the VHF and 700 MHz bands, the channel spacing will ultimately (after 12/31/2014) be 6.25 kHz
throughout the band. In the interim, two channels are usually aggregated to provide 12.5 kHz channel
spacing. The P25 Phase 1 modulation is designed to work with 12.5 kHz channel spacing. P25 Phase
2, which is under development, will provide two voice paths in 12.5 kHz.
2.1.2 RF Coverage Comparison
(CTAP conducted a study comparing coverage predictions of 3 frequencies, one each from the VHF,
700 MHz and 800 MHz bands. Two RF sites were used, one at Kahua Ranch and the other at Lulani
Cone. This comparison is not intended to precisely show coverage from the different sites but to
provide a relative comparison between the 3 different bands. For example, an average loss was
applied to represent land use land clutter as opposed to using varying values mapped to a detailed
land use database.
Bounded Area Comparison
To directly compare the results of the three coverage predictions, a bounded area must first be
identified. For this case, the coastline of the Island of Hawaii was used to define the bounded area.
The following images show a comparison between the covered areas (blue overlay) predicted for the
three frequencies (Figure 1 - 861 MHz, Figure 2 - 769 MHz, Figure 3 - 155 MHz) using a receiver
threshold of -110dBmW. This threshold estimates talk-out coverage to a mobile radio.
~ NPSPAC portion of the 800 MHz band: base transmitter frequencies from 866 to 869 MHz prior to
reconfiguration and 851 to 854 MHz after reconfiguration.
October 2008
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment /CTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-00l-RO
October 2008
Figure 1: Talk-out Coverage, 861 MHz
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment lCTgP-HUHA-PREASSESS-OOI -RO
October 2008
Figure 2: Talk-out Coverage, 769 MHz
v ,+a,} ~, r t7r 1 Fa v.,..
,ra , r •~°:. .
v'.
Hawaii Preliminory.Technical Assessment ~ "~"`.> lCTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
A close examination of these images reveals only minor coverage area differences between the 800
and 700 MHz plots. The VHF plot shows a more noticeable increase in predicted coverage (-40%)
comparably. Error! Reference source not found. includes the numeric results including area
covered by the two sites at each frequency as well as the overall coverage percentage for the
bounded area.
October 2008
Figure 3: TalkoutCoverage, 155 MHz
Hmvall Preliminary Technical Assessment
Table 1: Bounded Area Coverage
/CTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
Tx Frequency (MHz) Coverage Percentage Area Covered (kmx)
861 35.5% 3818.6
769 37.1 % 3988.5
155 50.7% 5459.1
Although not as disparate as the coverage comparison conducted by Macro, these results do show
that necessary coverage could be provided with fewer VHF sites. How many less depends on many
factors that would have to be studied in detail.
The State of Oregon recently conducted a comparison of coverage from test sites using both VHF
and 700 MHz. The report on this study is expected to be published in October. This document can be
used by the County of Hawaii in comparison of its own sites.
2.2 Simulcast Modulation
The Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report states that the simulcast modulation
scheme will require Linear Simulcast Modulation (LSM). We have a concern about this for the
proposed Request For Proposal (RFP) because if LSM is required, competition will be eliminated. We
recommend that the requirement for simulcast be any system compliant with the Standard Simulcast
Modulation as defned by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). TIA-CAAA-C is a new
document that TIA has voted to publish and will release shortly which will define Standard Simulcast
Modulation.
If the RFP is written so it requires compliance to the TIA-CAAA-C standard vice LSM, it will allow for
open competition. It should be the vender's choice as to which of the Standard Simulcast Modulation
formats that they utilize as long as they can meet or exceed system coverage and availability. The
simulcast method that is chosen for use at the fixed end will be compatible with all P25 subscriber
radios from any vendor due to the use of a standardized method.
The Macro proposal utilizes several simulcast cells plus a number of stand alone (non-simulcast)
sites. The cost of developing simulcast cells is more expensive due to the additional equipment
required and may not be required in some cases. ICTAP recommends allowing any potential vendors
to propose their breakdown of areas requiring simulcast or if simulcast is even required.
2.3 Interoperability
Enhanced interoperability is one of the stated goals for the project. Below is a quick look at the major
on and off island radio systems:
On island systems:
• The State DoT, Airports Division has an 800 MHz Motorola trunked radio system. This is a
proprietary radio system.
• The State Department of Public Safety, State Sheriffs has an 800 MHz Motorola conventional
system.
• The State Department of Land and Natural Resources has a VHF conventional system.
• The State Medicom system utilizes a UHF conventional system.
• Federal Law enforcement is in the VHF band.
October 2008
Hawaii Preliminary Technics! Assessment (CTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-00/-RO'..
• The US National Park Service utilizes a P25 VHF system.
• The US Military has a stand alone, P25 UHF trunked system.
Off island systems:
• Maui -The main system on Maui is the County 800 MHz EFJohnson Multi-Net II trunked radio
system. This is a proprietary radio system.
Oahu -The main system on Oahu is the Honolulu 800 MHz M/A-COM EDACS trunked radio
system. This is a proprietary radio system.
• Kauai -The main system on Kauai is the County 800 MHz Motorola SmartNet II trunked radio
system. This is a proprietary radio system.
The key point for interoperability (without using a gateway) is that the subscriber unit must match the
fixed infrastructure by using the same frequency band and the same radio protocol. For example, if
the County installs a P25 700/800 MHz system, the County subscriber radios will not necessarily be
able to communicate on any of the three other county 800 MHz systems since they use proprietary
protocols. However, if the County purchases subscriber radios from one of the vendors of the
proprietary protocol, they could have both the P25 protocol and the vendor's proprietary protocol.
Likewise the other counties could purchase subscriber radios with both their proprietary protocol and
the P25 protocol so they could communicate on the Hawaii County system when visiting the County
by switching to the County profile.
Utilizing the same frequency band does not guarantee interoperability with all users of the same band
due to differences in system design and the potential use of proprietary protocols. Additionally, the
?use of P25 protocol does not guarantee interoperability across all frequency bands unless multi-band
.subscribers are used.
We understand the State has future plans to upgrade to a 700 MHz P25 system. At that time, if the
County chooses to install a 700 and/or 800 MHz system, it would have level 5 interoperabilityZ with
•the State as long as the State and County each purchase dual 700/800 MHz subscriber units.
Another option for interoperability with the other Counties is for either the State or County to integrate
the 800 MHz NPSPAC channels into the new trunked system for use on the island. The existing
radios carried by the users on Maui, Oahu, and Kauai are capable of operating on NPSPAC channels
in the conventional analog mode of operation. These conventional channels should be added to the
system regardless if the trunked system operates on VHF or 800 MHz.
2.4 Project 25 Interoperability
The P25 Land Mobile radio (LMR) standards have been developed to enhance interoperability for
public safety radio users. The standard is contained in a suite of more than 60 documents maintained
by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). All P25 compliant radios are able to
communicate with each other while being backward compatible with legacy analog FM radios, when
in the same frequency band. P25 is a digital standard, which enhances bandwidth efficiency and
provides other advantages. Both voice and (optionally) low speed data services are covered.
From its inception, Project 25 has had four primary objectives:
• To enable effective inter-agency communications
z Level 5 is a Standazds-based Shazed System according to the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum
October 2008 9 .
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment /CTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS001-RO
• To improve radio spectrum effciency
• To focus equipment and capabilities on public safety needs
• To leverage an open architecture to promote competition across LMR vendors
The P25 architecture is composed of an RF subsystem and eight open intertaces to the RF
subsystem:
RF Subsystem (RFSS) -This is the core of a P25 LMR system that supports all radio functionality.
Each vendor is at liberty to design its own proprietary RFSS, but to be P25 compliant it must adhere
to the P25 intertace standards outlined below, especially the Common Air Interface.
Common Air Intertace (CAI) -CAI is the most recognized element of P25. It ensures that any
manufacturer's P25 radio can communicate with any other manufacturer's P25 radio. It defines the .
over-the-air communication method: bit rate, bandwidth, and channel access methodologies, as well
as modulation scheme, error correction, encryption, identification, signaling, and vocoder.
Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) -The P25 ISSI provides the messaging structure between
multiple trunked systems, allowing them to be connected into wide area networks. A standardized
ISSI allows users to communicate between multiple LMR systems without the use of traditional
gateways, as long as each Radio Frequency Sub-System (RFSS) supports the ISSI specification.
Fixed Station Intertace (FSI) -The FSI connects conventional (not trunked) base stations to a
system using a standard interface. For example, an (CALL, ITAC, or VHF base station could be
connected to the system using the FSI so that it is accessible by both dispatchers and users in the
field. The FSI is defined for both analog and P25 (digital) base stations. The analog interface is
identical to analog intertaces that have been used for years by the LMR industry, so that portion of
the standard is not new. Now the intertace is standardized and defined in a document. The interface
to conventional P25 base stations is new. The intertace between a P25 trunked base station and its
controller has not been standardized to date in the P25 standards. Combining trunked base stations
from different P25 manufacturers is currently not feasible within a single P25 trunked system.
Console Subsystem Interface (CSSI) -The trunked CSSI allows consoles from Manufacturer A to
be connected into Manufacturer B's system. Having this intertace would give communication system
administrators some flexibility in choosing consoles in the future. It should be noted that the trunked
CSSI is based upon and defined as an addendum to the ISSI standard. Therefore, the deployment of
this intertace may also require an ISSI capable system. The trunked CSSI may not offer the same
feature set that is available from a manufacturer who uses a proprietary interface to connect with
Manufacturer B's system.
Network Management Interface (NMI) -This element of P25 is under development. It specifies a
common management scheme whereby remote users can manage all network elements associated
with the RFSS.
Fixed Host Data Interface -This element of P25 defines the system's connectivity to computers,
data networks, and external data sources at the fixed end of the system, the RFSS.
Telephone Interconnect Intertace (TII) -This element of P25 defines the RFSS intertace to the
Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), supporting both analog and ISDN connections. For
example, it enables P25 LMR users to place calls to public land lines.
Mobile Data Intertace (MDI) -This P25 element defines the interface through which land mobile
subscriber radios can connect to laptops or data networks.
2.5 P25 Subscriber Units
There are several vendors who currently manufacture P25 trunked subscriber (portable and
vehicular) radios capable of operating in the VHF and 700/800 MHz bands. Several vendors also plan
October 2008 10
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessment
ICTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
to offer a multiband portable radio capable of supporting a combination of the VHF, UHF, and
700/800 MHz bands. Several of these radios have been used on various systems around the country
while others are relatively new to the marketplace. Vendors offering P25 subscriber radios include
Motorola, M/A-COM, Kenwood, EFJohnson, Tait, Thales, Icom, Vertex/Standard and BK/Relm,
providing several options and competitive pricing far any new radio procurement, although not all
support trunking.
It should be noted that there are multiple optional features radio manufacturers can offer in their P25
radios. A lack of commonality of these features can have a negative impact on interoperability. For
example, P25 currently supports DES-OFB and AES encryption. If implemented in the infrastructure,
all P25 subscriber radios must have the same optional encryption algorithm enabled in order to
support secure communications. For more information regarding standardized P25 features refer to
the P25 Features Matrix located on the PTIG website (www.oroiect25.oro). It's important to note that
there are several additional P25 features of interest that have not yet been defined within the P25
standards but are planned for future development. These features are not included in the P25
Features Matrix. Over-the-air-programming (OTAP) is one such example. Until an undefined feature
is standardized, manufacturers may provide proprietary implementations of the feature to allow the
service to be provided to the end user. These proprietary implementations will not allow for
interoperability of these respective features across multiple vendors.
When the County of Hawaii representatives look to buy new P25 subscriber radios, there are a few
recent upgrades to the P25 standards to be aware of prior to purchase. The first is the adoption of a
new enhanced full-rate vocoder for Phase 1 to replace the existing full-rate vocoder. The
improvements are intended to address degraded voice quality issues identified in the field caused
from self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and other common fire ground noise. This issue was
briefly mentioned in section 2.1.1. Some P25 manufacturers currently use the new vocoder while
others plan to implement it in the future. The second upgrade relates to the changes necessary for
.:subscriber radios to fully support ISSI roaming. The P25 standard was recently modified and current
subscribers may not fully support the changes. ICTAP recommends consulting with selected
manufacturers on how their respective subscriber units support both of these recent upgrades.
2.6 Voice Communications Recommendations
Frequency Band Selection
The Macro Conceptual Design Analysis 8 Recommendation Report recommends the County adopt a
P25 trunked system operating in the 700 MHz band. There are concerns and complications involved
with choosing to stay in the VHF band or migrating to either 700 or 800 MHz.
We disagree with the Macro assumptions that digital VHF would not be favorable to wide area and
portable coverage and venders do not support VHF multicast P25 trunking. There are at least five
vendors that provide trunked P25 VHF multicast systems and at least three of those also support
VHF simulcast. We do agree that there would be additional frequency pairing concerns and system
migration concerns using the VHF spectrum.
The Macro Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report dismissed the thought of using
VHF and recommended a migration to 700 MHz with very little consideration of 800 MHz. All of the
adjacent counties are presently operating proprietary-protocol 800 MHz systems. If the County had
800 MHz capable subscriber units then County assets could deploy to other counties throughout
Hawaii and operate on 800 MHz interoperability channels in the NPSPAC band. Likewise the other
counties would be able to support the County of Hawaii if the County or State fielded an
interoperability system using 800 MHz NPSPAC channels on the Island. The 800 MHz interoperability
system could be deployed regardless of the frequency band that the County of Hawaii chooses for its
new system.
There is a potential for the State to install a 700 MHz P25 system on the island. At the present time all
subscriber units for 700 MHz are being developed as dual band (7001800) capable. If the County
October 2008 11
Hawaii Pre(imittary Technical Assessmen!
lCTAP-HUHA-PRRASSESS-00/-RO
fielded an 800 MHz system they, too, could purchase dual band radios for any users that may need
interoperability with State agencies while also being able to purchase less expensive 800 only radios
from an array of vendors for users that would not require interoperability.
Available Number of Frequencies in Each Band
The existing Counties access to 800, according to the Macro's Needs Assessment document (page
4-$)is:
The County received an allocation of 24 channels, each channel a paired set of
frequencies with a basemobile frequency separation of 45 MHz. The County does not
have any FCC licenses for these frequencies. Should the County decide to build a
system using this set of frequencies, the County will have to submit the FCC
application to the Region 11 committee for review and approval prior to submission to
a public safety coordinator. The approval letter from the committee becomes part of
the FCC application, which is generally granted with very little delay.
The Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report states the following (page 2-5):
Based upon Macro's experience, a 15 channel trunked system would meet current
and future needs for communications through 2025 under normal, emergency and
critical incident types of communications.
But the Channel Plan on page 2-10 shows 35 channels required for voice traffic. ICTAP concerns
over the discrepancy between saying 15 channels are sufficient and proposing a design which
requires 35 channels.
The County is presently licensed for approximately 28 VHF frequencies occupying 25 kHz bandwidth.
With careful choice of location, these frequencies could be expanded to 56 frequencies using 12.5
kHz which is the bandwidth occupied by P25 Phase 1.56 frequencies form 28 frequency pairs, each
frequency pair is a channel in a trunked system.
We were unable to provide an independent assessment of the channel requirements because neither
the Needs Assessment nor Conceptual Design document showed a clear number of existing users,
the breakdown of users by discipline, or the projected growth.
Additionally the Call For Service - 2007 table on page 2-10 of the Conceptual Design document is
unclear. Are the numbers in this table individual radio transmissions or radio conversations? These
numbers plus the user information would be required to properly assess the number of channels
required. The County has very unique terrain considerations with vastly spaced population centers
but a 35 channel system appears to be too large for a population base of approximately 172,000 full-
time residents plus a significant influx of visitors.
Cost Considerations
From a straight equipment cost standpoint, migrating to a new P-25 system will be approximately the
same cost for the County regardless of the frequency band. In other words, a VHF base station is
approximate the same cost as an 800 MHz base station. 700 MHz may not be quite as affordable as
the demand is still much lower compared to the other bands. However, since a VHF system would
require fewer sites, a significant costs savings could be realized: Regardless of which band is chosen,
all subscriber units (mobiles and portables) owned by the County would need to be replaced with P25
capable radios in the proper frequency band.
If the County decides to proceed with either 700 or 800 MHz, we would recommend that the RFP be
written to allow 700 or $00 MHz or a combination of both bands. In other words, do not restrict the
RFP to just one band or the other. This could potentially increase competition and lower costs.
October 2008 ~ t2
rv ~>F`V!
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessmen!
lCTAP-H UHA-PREASSESS-001-RO'
3. Site Selection
One of the major concerns we had with the Macro Corp. plan is the reliance on so many un-
developed sites. The requirement to build out seven (7) new sites on County owned land plus an
additional nine (9) new sites on land that needs to be procured is unprecedented in other county-level
system design reviews pertormed by ICTAP.
Additional effort should be made to look into other potential sites that are presently used for radio
commuhications and grade them according to the ease of County use, i.e. County owned sites, state
owned site, other government owned (Federal or local) sites, public utility owned sites and
commercial (two way radio and cellular) sites. This process is a give and take process that may
cause an RF site to be placed on an existing tower that may not be in the optimum location but will
satisfy the needs when the system is evaluated as a whole.
We understand that anytime that a system is changed out from a conventional VHF system to a
700/800 MHz simulcast system there is a need to add additional sites. The goal is to do so in the
most cost effective manner. The costs to develop new sites and the recurring costs for leases can
make the best designed radio system too expensive to field or maintain.
Coverage requirements should also be considered. The coverage, as laid out by the Macro
Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report, is portable coverage with 6 dB of in-building
attenuation island wide. For a county that has vast areas of rural, farming, and open land this is a
very aggressive coverage requirement. Furthermore, 6 dB is insuffcient for true in-building
attenuation calculations even for residential structures.
An alternative approach is to develop service areas and specify coverage levels for the service areas.
An example for the County of Hawaii would be to develop a service area that covers the Hilo area
and a second that incorporates the Kailua-Kona area including the hotels. These service areas could
then have a more aggressive coverage requirement of 95 (or higher) percent reliability to portables on
the hip with 12 to 16 d6 of in-building attenuation. The remaining island could have a coverage
requirement of 95 percent to mobiles. This is a more common approach to large areas like county
wide systems and ensures adequate radio coverage where a majority of the calls originate.
4. Microwave System
The main concern that we have with the microwave design is at the planned Police Department and
Fire Dispatch (PDFD) Center in Hilo. The first concern is that this is the single most important site in
the whole plan. It is the primary control site for the proposed 700 MHz trunking system, the proposed
700 MHz HPD system and the VHF fire alert paging system. In spite of the critical need to
communicate to and from this site, the PDFD Center is not placed on the microwave ring. Instead it is
a spur off of the ring causing a single point of failure for the entire communications system of the
County. To make the system even less reliable, an 18 GHz microwave system is planned to tie this
site to the ring. We strongly recommend that 18 GHz technology is not used in the Hilo area due to
it's susceptibility to fading caused by weather. We do not recommend 18 GHz and above technology
in any mission critical public safety environment even in very dry locations. 18 GHz would be suitable
for alternate path redundancy. We would recommend that the system be re-designed to allow this site
to be placed on the ring or at the very least have two (2) spurs from this site to the microwave system
to allow for system redundancy.
The neM concern is the bandwidth of the PDFD Center microwave. It is planned to be a 28 T1 (45
Mbs) radio tying to a 3-DS3 (45 Mbs x 3) ring. The concern here is as the new site becomes the key
to operations around the island, that this bandwidth will be insufficient and a choke point for data
getting on and off the ring. The connectivity to the ring should be equal to the ring capacity.
The Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report states the following (page 3-11):
October 2008 13
/Imvaii Preliminary Technical Assessmen!
/CTAP-/IUHA-PREASSESS-001-RO
The enclosed herein provides information relative to the expansion of the current
island wide microwave system. The system is comprised of 8 GHz, 11 GHz and 18
GHz paths. There are a total of seventeen additional paths in the network. Of that
seventeen, two have concerns relative to path blockage. They are the paths to COC
Road and Waipio Valley. Since there appears to be no line of sight to these locations
from any existing island radio sites the recommendation would be to pursue an option
of using a product that does not require line of sight (i.e. 4.9 GHz Orthogon) or to go
with a leased telephone circuit.
This comment about the 4.9 GHz Orthogon product capabilities is not true. The product is advertised
as not requiring Line of Site (LOS) but it does not overcome blocked paths. What is referred to as
normal LOS in microwave radios is the center line of the signal plus a minimum of 0.60% of the first
Fresnel zone. The manufacturer of this product states that the product can overcome obstructions of
the Fresnel zone but not complete blockage. The two (2) paths mentioned above are completely
blocked and if, after re-evaluating the site selection process these sites are still required, then other
connectivity will be necessary.
For simplicity of system maintenance, we recommend that the microwave system be designed with a
common radio platform that can operate in 6 GHz for long haul paths and 11 GHz for short (under 10
miles) paths.
There is a minimum antenna size limit that the FCC places on certain microwave frequency bands.
To meet FCC Regulatory compliance for the 6 GHz frequency bands, the minimum dish size allowed
is six (6) foot diameter. The 11 GHz band has commercially available antennas that meet the FCC
regulatory compliance with antennas as small as three (3) foot diameter. If the new paths for this
design are considered short enough to consider the 11 GHz option then any potential tower leases for
the new sites can be considerably lower. ICTAP prefers to minimize any recurring costs on any
agency owned systems. Another potential advantage to the smaller antennas is the aesthetic impact
on buildings and facilities plus minimal physical impact on tower structures allowing more closely
installed antennas and less adverse wind loading on a structural analysis.
5. High Performance Data (HPD)
It should be noted that HPD is a Motorola proprietary product. Hawaii should anticipate that Motorola
may be the only vendor to offer additional equipment or upgrades for this product for the life time of
the product. The product is, and may be, sole sourced and specifying it would likely impact the
potential competition for the voice system as well. There are several alternatives to HPD such as
CalAmp's DataRadio, IPMobileNet's products, GE MDS products and M/A-COM's Opensky data
product. ICTAP recommends that the County specify the performance that is required from a data
system and not specify particular products in their procurement process.
Unlike voice, there are no standardized methods for predicting RF propagation (coverage) of data
communications for public safety communications. Therefore it is currently not possible to calculate
coverage predictions of HPD in a standardized process. Predictions are dependent on a vendor's
recommendations of the parameters to be used to analyze their system. Motorola has stated publicly
that the coverage of HPD at the 96 kb/s rate is approximately equal to that of voice. Therefore, ICTAP
expected to see that the coverage of voice to a vehicular unit and the coverage of HPD to that same
vehicular unit would be approximately the same.
The predictions in the Conceptual Design Report in section 3.4 state that mobile (vehicular) voice
covers 85.9% of the County using 26 sites whereas HPD covers 98.2% of the County (more than
voice) using only 17 sites and one of these is located on Maui. Based on Motorola's statement that
coverage is the same and based on ICTAP's knowledge of the propagation characteristics we find
this discrepancy between voice and HPD coverage to be problematic.
October 2008 14
Hawaii Preliminary Technical Assessmen( lCTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-00/-RO
6. VHF -Fire Alert Paging
We have no concerns about the Fire alert paging system using the VHF frequency band.
Our concern is, again, in the site selection process. Besides our concern about the sheer number of
new sites proposed as documented in Paragraph 3 above, there is also a question about why there
are three sites proposed to support the Fire alert paging system effort that are not on the Voice
network. Using the same sites should reduce the maintenance costs and may reduce the leasing and
up-front costs. We don't have enough information on the pager units to form a definitive response as
to the number of sites required.
If the decision is made to construct a VHF trunked system the paging transmitters should be able to
be integrated into the antenna systems of the trunked sites thus reducing up-front costs, tower
leasing costs, and maintenance costs.
Eventually the paging function may be able to be pertormed by the trunked system thus eliminating
the fire alert paging as a separate system.
October 2008 i 5
Hawaii Preliminary Technica(Asseumem
7. Conclusion
ICTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-00/-RO
This technical report provides high level comments on the two Macro Corporation documents and the
overall direction of the communication upgrades for the County of Hawaii. This document discusses
the differences between the 700 and 800 MHz frequency bands and reviews the potential of staying
in the VHF band. Consideration of the UHF public safety frequency band was not a logical option
because the only interoperability to a new P25 UHF system would be with the Military. The VHF band
may prove to be difficult to achieve due to the limited frequency availability and lack of existing
frequency pairing plans. Furthermore, migrating from an existing VHF system to a new P25 VHF
system would require the two systems to be operational during the migration period.
From a physical standpoint, the RF propagation differences between operating in the 700 MHz or 800
MHz bands are negligible. Using one band over the other will not make a significant difference in the
coverage footprint on the island if all other factors (transmit power, antenna height, etc) are
considered equal. VHF propagation, on the other hand, is considerably different and could potentially
lower the cost of a countywide system by reducing the number of required sites. However, the cost
savings for the infrastructure could be balanced out by the added cost of purchasing multiband radios
where required.
When considering a new radio system, ICTAP recommends going with a solution that provides
interoperability both for users on and off island should assistance from outside agencies be needed in
times of emergency. The P25 standard has been created to standardize radio systems at specific
intertace points and is a great option for providing a framework for interoperability.
All of the adjacent islands presently utilize the 800 MHz band with proprietary trunked systems.
Interoperability with these other counties would require all users to have 800 MHz capable radios with
the NPSPAC channels programmed into the subscriber units and a NPSPAC interoperability network
available. Interoperability to a proposed State 700 MHz system would require all users to be able to
operate in the 700 MHz band or have dual band capability (both 700 and 800 MHz). Interoperability
with Federal law enforcement and the US National Park Service that primarily operate in the VHF
frequency band also should be considered.
In regards to an 800 MHz system from a licensing standpoint, ICTAP recommends that Hawaii use
the interleaved portion of the 800 MHz band at frequencies lower than the Expansion Band but above
the NPSPAC band; that is, frequencies from 854 to 859.9875 MHz.
We recommend developing service areas for coverage requirements instead of a blanket approach
across the county. This will ensure reliable coverage in more densely populated areas while possibly
reducing overall system costs.
ICTAP recommends readdressing the site selection process. Minimizing the use of undeveloped sites
is desirable.
To ensure connectivity to the critical site of the planned Police Department and Fire Dispatch (PDFD)
Center in Hilo re-design the microwave system to either place this site on the ring or have two paths
in and out of the system.
It is important to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) that informs the potential bidders that the
Macro Conceptual Design Analysis & Recommendation Report is, in fact, just "conceptual" to allow
for innovative and potentially cost saving proposals. This requires the RFP to be more open and
flexible. Allow vendors to re-look at all site locations, the use of VHF, 700 MHz and/or 800 MHz,
which method of simulcast modulation, determination of which sites are simulcast, and which sites
are stand alone. Using the analysis in this repoR, it is ICTAP's recommendation that the County of
Hawaii develop a P25 system. We found no compelling reason to choose one frequency band over
the other. We have eliminated the UHF band but a system that utilizes VHF or one that utilizes the
October 2008 16
Hawaii Preliminary Technics/Assessment
lCTAP-HUHA-PREASSESS-00/-RO
700/800MHz spectrum as its primary means of wireless communications will work fine for the
County's needs.
Octo6er2008 17