VHF and UHF Narrowbanding - Your Complete Guide To Meet The Deadline

VHF and UHF Narrowbanding:
Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline

RadioResource
TM
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Educational Series
Sponsored by
2 I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding: Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline
Contents
Foreword: Sandra Wendelken, Editor, MissionCritical Communications .................3 Section 1: Policy and Regulatory Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away, Sandra Wendelken ..............6 Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays, Wesley Wright .....................9 FCC Active in Narrowbanding Education, Ralph A. Haller ............................12 FCCs Barnett Talks Narrowbanding..............................................................13 Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials..............................14 Section 2: Operations and Procedures Coordination is Critical, John Johnson ..........................................................25 7 Narrowbanding Tips, Leonard Koehnen .....................................................29 Fallacies and Facts, Leonard Koehnen .........................................................34 Narrowbanding Prep, Joe Blaschka Jr ..........................................................36 Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?, Klaus Bender .....................................41 7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance, Nick Ruark .....................................47 Section 3: Technology Solutions Simulcast Networks, Ed OConnor, Joe Blaschka Jr. and John Thompson ..51 Affordable Coverage Options, Joe Ross and Rick Burke ..............................56 A Roadmap for Signal Testing, Carl Peek .....................................................61 Rural Agencies Adopt Digital Communications, Sandra Wendelken ............66 The Big Digital Decision, Todd Ellis ...............................................................68 Section 4: User Best Practices and Case Studies Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding.............................................75 How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?.............................................77 Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments, Sandra Wendelken..................82 Railroads Weigh Digital Options, Del Williams ..............................................87 Section 5: Funding Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project, Rick Burke ................................93 Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements, Vince Siragusa ...98 Section 6: Industry Research Reader Survey: 80% Plan to Meet Narrowbanding Deadline......................103 Do Most Narrowbanding Projects Include Digital? ......................................105 NPSTC: Most Licensees Need Additional Equipment.................................106 APCO Tracks Narrowband Licenses by State .............................................107 Public Safety Ahead of Business/Industrial Licensees................................108 Sponsors ..............................................................................................................109
RadioResource
TM
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Educational Series
2012 By Pandata Corp. All Rights Reserved. Pandata Corp., 7108 S. Alton Way, Building H, Centennial, CO 80112. Telephone: 303-792-2390. Website: www.MCCmag.com
3 I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding: Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline
Foreward
By Sandra Wendelken In February 2009, the month the long-awaited digital TV (DTV) deadline arrived, I wrote in MissionCritical Communications magazine: Another deadline, Jan. 1, 2013, isnt that far off. Indeed, that date is now just months away. When the VHF and UHF narrowbanding mandate was first set in 2004, 2013 seemed like a long time coming. But now there is less than a year before the deadline hits. Licenses for VHF and UHF systems that arent converted to narrowband channels by the 2013 deadline will be subject to whatever consequences the FCC chooses to impose. Many public-safety agencies have taken care of the new 12.5-kilohertz channel requirement by implementing new Project 25 (P25) or other systems. Many utilities with large systems also have upgraded their networks to the new channel requirements. However, narrowbanding applies to radios and infrastructure. Many systems and licensees may still be operating in wideband 25-kilohertz mode even though their subscriber units are capable of narrowband, because their wideband-only infrastructure repeaters or base stations havent been changed out. Many in the industry think the majority of small- and even mid-sized networks in operation throughout the country are not compliant. Whats worse, dealers and consultants fear some of those operators dont know or are ignoring the pending deadline for various reasons. Also, how will all of this affect interoperability when some systems are operating in narrowband mode and some systems are still wideband? Take advantage of the vast amount of information this eBook offers to move forward with and complete your narrowbanding project. Any question you might have can likely be answered in this unique resource. If you find a question or topic that isnt addressed, contact me immediately and our editorial staff will find the information and send updates to those who register and download the eBook. You can reach me by emailing editor@RRMediaGroup.com or calling 303-793-2390 x 110. Now get busy narrowbanding!
MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding
Why do leading police departments trust Kenwood?
"We have had remarkable success with the Kenwood NEXEDGE system. We're after what keeps our officers safe and we have to use our money wisely. The NEXEDGE system has far surpassed our expectations in coverage and clarity of signal."
William T. (Tracy) Neal, Communications Director, McDuffie County Sheriff's Office

Agencies with NEXEDGE radios across the U.S. all agree about the sheer toughness of Kenwood digital mobiles and portables, as well as the superb audio quality. Kenwood NEXEDGE radios support both existing analog as well as advanced 6.25 and 12.5 kHz digital modes, so your agency can migrate to new spectrum requirements at your pace and according to your budget.
Scan with your phone for NEXEDGE information and current promotions.
1-800-950-5005
ADS#02812
Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away, Sandra Wendelken ........................6 Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays, Wesley Wright...............................9 FCC Active in Narrowbanding Education, Ralph A. Haller ......................................12 FCCs Barnett Talks Narrowbanding .......................................................................13 Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials .......................................14
Sponsored by
6 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory
Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away

By Sandra Wendelken, Editor With less than a year to go before the VHF and UHF narrowbanding deadline of Jan. 1, 2013, everyone involved in the mandate has a lot of work ahead. In the past six months, slightly fewer than 50 percent of public-safety call signs had narrowband designations, said David Furth, deputy chief of the FCCs Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB). Thats a significant uptick, Furth said. But it also leaves a lot of licensees left to narrowband. Based on research from the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International conducted about six months ago, around 63,000 public-safety and 180,000 business/industrial licensees still hadnt narrowbanded, said APCO Internationals Spectrum Management Division Director Farokh Latif. A few months have passed and hopefully people are taking action, but by how much, I dont know, Latif said. And that was just modifying their licenses; that has nothing to do with implementation. And as the deadline gets closer, bottlenecks are increasing. In November, the FCC staff was looking at a backlog of three and a half months for narrowbanding applications. The number of applications is growing rapidly, Latif said. Many are waiting for action. For licensees that still need to narrowband, funding is the biggest need. For those who are latecomers to the game, there isnt another budget cycle they can take advantage of, Latif said. It may be too late. He recommends that any entity that hasnt already started the process to begin by taking a full inventory of its equipment to determine what it needs. There are many resources, including vendors, to let licensees know what needs to be narrowbanded, Latif said. Then you can determine what needs to be replaced and assign a dollar value to it. And as more licensees narrowband their systems, problems will occur with non-narrowbanded systems. Interference will be a larger factor in VHF spectrum than in UHF spectrum, Latif said. Once 2013 arrives, frequency coordinators will assume everyone has gone narrowband, he said. In VHF, the way the band is laid out, even if you go narrowband, you still have to
7 I Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away
protect 7.5-kilohertz adjacent channels. In UHF, because of sufficient spectral separation and non-overlapping of channels, coordinators dont have to protect adjacent channels in many instances. That shouldnt cause problems. But if a licensee has a co-channel and somebody 70 miles away is operating in wideband mode, they might interfere with their neighbors. Some licensees that have narrowbanded said there is a loss of coverage and audio quality. It really depends on the type of system you have deployed and the topography, Latif said. One licensee may narrowband and have no problems whatsoever, and another may have issues with it. Interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions might be another problem. People arent talking to each other, he said. If city A and city B are adjacent and have an interoperability plan, and city A narrowbands without telling city B, the interoperability plan is invalid, and they wont be able to communicate. Make sure you communicate and talk to your neighbors that you have a plan to migrate. The FCC recently put two narrowbanding waiver requests out for public comment. The first in October was a request from members of the St. Louis urban area, which is in the process of constructing a multicounty interoperable 800 MHz radio system that wont be complete until Dec. 31, 2013. The latest request for comments came in December regarding a waiver request from University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics (UIHC) for its paging system. The hospital is in the process of deploying a new system that will allow staff to use cell phones, smartphones and tablets instead of pagers, but this system may not be fully installed by January 2013. The FCCs Furth said he expects more waiver requests will be put out on public notice. We have not received a large number of waiver requests, he said. In our public notice, our recommendation was to file a waiver request by the end of year, because it is our intent to look at waiver requests very carefully. Greg Kunkle, partner at Keller and Heckman law firm, said licensees requesting a waiver should submit the requests by the end of the first quarter of 2012 at the latest because the FCC is placing each narrowband extension request on an individual public notice. It takes time to prepare the public notice, time to allow for public comment, and time for the commission to process the request, he said. If that remains the practice, licensees that wait to file much beyond early 2012 may not get their filings ruled on by 2013.
8 I Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away
Kunkle said a licensee does not necessarily need an attorney to request an extension. What they do need is a good basis for the requested extension, he said. The FCC has stated that it will be disinclined to grant narrowbanding extensions, and licensees should proceed with that in mind. A knowledgeable attorney can advise on whether a particular justification might be viewed disfavorably by the FCC and make sure that the licensee has addressed the factors that the commission wants licensees to include in extension requests. Licensees better have a good excuse for not being able to meet the deadline, said APCOs Latif. Based on what Ive seen, the FCC isnt going to accept the excuse of not having funds. The mandate has been planned for 18 years, so I dont think the commission is going to buy that we dont have funds. In November, Rep. Steve Rothman from New Jersey introduced a bill to direct the FCC to extend the final deadline for VHF and UHF narrowbanding by two years. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce but hasnt seen movement. We are not changing our course in regard to narrowbanding in response to the introduction of this bill, said Furth.
Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays

By Wesley Wright The FCCs 2013 narrowbanding deadline is quickly approaching, and applicants for FCC radio licenses are already feeling the effects. The FCCs Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has received a substantial number of applications for new and modified private land mobile licenses in the VHF (150 174 MHz) and UHF (421 512 MHz) bands, seeking authority to operate on narrowband assignments. This influx of applications has caused the commissions processing time for private land mobile applications to increase significantly in recent months. The land mobile application increase appears to have extended the processing time for microwave applications as well. The FCCs first narrowbanding deadline was Jan. 1, 2011. As of this date, licensees can no longer file applications for new wideband (25 kilohertz) operations or modify existing wideband stations to expand the authorized interference contour. After Jan. 1, 2013, licensees in the VHF and UHF bands must operate on 12.5 kilohertz or narrower channels. As an alternative to these requirements, licensees may employ a technology that satisfies the so-called data equivalency standard, requiring a minimum of 4,800 bits per second (bps) per 6.25 kilohertz of channel bandwidth. Because reports indicate that as many as two-thirds of impacted licenses still remain without narrowband emission designators, its expected that the number of applications will continue to remain high as licensees file applications to narrowband existing private land mobile systems in advance of the 2013 narrowbanding transition deadline. Application Nuts and Bolts Licensees of affected stations that are transitioning to narrower bandwidths must file a modification application to either add a narrowband emission designator or change the wideband emission designator to a narrowband emission designator prior to Jan. 1, 2013. Not all modification applications for authority to operate on narrowband technology are required to go through frequency coordination. In 2010, the FCC
10 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays
released an order amending several provisions of its rules to make it easier for licensees to meet the narrowbanding deadline. For example, licensees are no longer required to submit applications to frequency coordinators if the application seeks only to reduce emissions on the same center channel (such as move from 25- to 12.5-kilohertz bandwidth) or delete an emission designator. Other applications, including those seeking authority to migrate from analog to digital equipment, must still be submitted to a frequency coordinator. As the license is modified to include the narrowband emission designator, the licensee has no further obligation to notify the commission that the station has met the narrowbanding deadline. Wideband emission designators dont need to be deleted from licenses prior to Jan. 1, 2013, to demonstrate compliance with the narrowbanding deadline. Instead, absent information to the contrary, stations authorized to operate with both wideband and narrowband emissions prior to Jan. 1, 2013, will initially be presumed to be operating only with narrowband emissions after Jan. 1, 2013. In addition, adding or changing an emission designator for an existing frequency doesnt trigger a new construction requirement, so the licensee will not need to file a new construction notification if it only adds narrowband emission designators to existing channels. For stations authorized to operate with a bandwidth exceeding 12.5 kilohertz, the licensee will be required to certify that it is operating narrowband-equivalent equipment that complies with the data equivalency standard. This is necessary because it may not be apparent from a licenses technical parameters whether a 25-kilohertz station is a noncompliant wideband station or a compliant narrowband-equivalent station. Because tens of thousands of these types of applications are being filed on top of the FCCs normal workload in a relatively short period of time, application processing times are expected to remain longer than usual through Jan. 1, 2013. Licensees should allow for extended application processing times when planning new land mobile and microwave systems. Conditional Temporary Authority In light of this increased processing time for most applications, applicants should be aware that the commissions rules permit many private land mobile and microwave systems to begin operating under conditional temporary authority (CTA) while their applications are pending at the FCC. For example, applicants for new and modified land mobile licenses operating on frequencies below 470 MHz are eligible to operate under CTA 10 business days after the
11 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays
application has been filed with the FCC if the following conditions are met: 1. The proposed transmitter site doesnt require Canadian coordination. 2. Authorization of the proposed station doesnt require a rule waiver. 3. The proposed station will not significantly affect the environment as defined by 47 CFR 1.1307. 4. The proposed station or tower structure doesnt pose a hazard to aviation safety and does not create any FCC antenna clearance issues. 5. The proposed station doesnt threaten any of the protected sites listed in 47 CFR 1.924 of the rules. 6. Frequency coordination has been secured or was not required. Applicants for most new or modified microwave systems may begin operating under CTA if similar conditions are met. The principal difference is that microwave applicants may begin operating under CTA immediately and are not required to wait 10 business days after the application is filed with the FCC. This will provide relief to some, but not all, applicants.
Wesley K. Wright is an associate at Keller and Heckman. Wright joined Keller and Heckman in 2006 and practices in the areas of telecommunications and transactional law. His telecommunications practice focuses on assisting corporate clients and trade associations with various legal and regulatory matters before the FCC, FAA, courts and state agencies. Contact Wright at wright@khlaw.com.
FCC Active in Narrowbanding Education

By Ralph A. Haller The FCC has taken several steps to help assure that land mobile licensees are aware of the Jan. 1, 2013, date for narrowbanding VHF and UHF systems. Beginning in 2013, all stations must meet an efficiency standard of one voice path per 12.5 kilohertz of bandwidth or 6.25 kilohertz per 4800 bits per second for digital systems. With the required transition date now less than a year away, the FCC has stepped up its campaign to notify licensees of the deadline. On Dec. 6, 2010, the FCC released a public notice that indicated the critical transition dates for full conversion to narrowband technologies and interim procedures for stations operating at 25-kilohertz bandwidth efficiency. The commission also has a Web page devoted to frequently asked questions about the narrowband transition requirements. The FCC has an excellent PowerPoint presentation that provides details of the transition and lists several links to websites that provide additional resources to assist licensees. The presentation is available at www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/ public-safety-spectrum/Narrowbanding_Briefing.ppt. One interesting point in the presentation is that the FCC will consider applications for waivers of the date, but a high standard will have to be met. That standard isnt actually defined. (Dont count on getting a waiver!) A narrowband panel was also hosted by the FCC Jan. 26, 2011, and was made available for viewing on the Web. Narrowbanding requirements were explained. The major issues that were identified were funding for the transition and getting the word out to licensees. Even with all the FCCs efforts, it appears that many licensees have no clue that narrowbanding is required.
Ralph A. Haller served as chief of the FCCs Private Radio Bureau for more than eight years. He is currently president of Fox Ridge Communications in Gettysburg, Pa. E-mail comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
FCCs Barnett Talks Narrowbanding

In a recent interview with MissionCritical Communications Editor Sandra Wendelken, FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) Chief Jamie Barnett addresses public-safety communications issues including narrowbanding. Here is an excerpt. MCC: Should readers expect any further clarifications or information related to VHF and UHF narrowbanding? Barnett: I want to help our public-safety community go out to their jurisdictions and local governments and get serious about what they need to complete this by the deadline. I realize some are in a bad place, and we want to give them the information they need and encouragement so their jurisdictions can move forward. Narrowbanding equipment has been available since 1997. The FCC wanted to provide a long lead-time. Equipment should be capable now, so its not a completely expensive switch to 12.5 kilohertz. My main focus is to help agencies convince local jurisdictions to put narrowbanding in the budget and move forward. In 2011, you cant have equipment with 25-kilohertz mode, and there wont be new applications for systems or modifications allowed after Jan. 1, 2011. Regarding 6.25-kilohertz operation, no deadline is set for 512 MHz and below. The FCC has said it would want to receive comments before any deadline that is set. So there will be an opportunity to discuss 6.25-kilohertz channels before a deadline is set for going to 6.25 kilohertz on those lower bands. MCC: How does your new role at the FCC compare to your 32 years in the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserve? Barnett: Im amazed at the parallel between the FCC and the military. Both include people who are dedicated and really want to make it work. They want to make sure they have the systems to save lives and property and do their nations business. The FCC has a mission like the military to save lives and property. Its exciting to me to be involved in this.
Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

FCC officials agreed to answer technical questions submitted by MissionCritical Communications readers. Following are questions from readers and answers from FCC technical and policy experts. Question: I have a mining company client that uses 72 MHz for crane and locomotive control. All of the narrowbanding articles I have seen say frequencies in the 70 512 MHz apply, yet I have never seen anything defining narrowband operations in the 72/75 MHz band. Please explain what happens in this band. Answer: The narrowbanding resulting from the refarming proceeding only pertains to the private land mobile bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz. There is no requirement to narrowband systems operating in the 72 76 MHz band. Question: The same mining company has mining operations in Canada. Do we know if Canada is going through this? Timeline? Can they move their U.S. radios to their Canadian operation if they have been type accepted by Canada? Answer: I received the following information from Industry Canada: The Canadian Redeployment Plan does not have a hard transition date like the United States. If operations are located in a congested zone and a wideband system is blocking a more efficient operation, then Industry Canada may narrowband the system. Notwithstanding the lack of a hard transition date, congestion in urban areas generally requires new systems, especially near the border regions, to be narrowband. Significant justification is needed for new systems in this band to obtain authorization for wideband systems. Specifically, with respect to the mining company in question, assuming that the mining company isnt in a congested area, it can move its radios to Canada if they are type accepted and the company may never have to narrowband. Question: Are General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licensees in the Part 95 service required to narrowband their equipment? When?
15 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials
Answer: The GMRS, regulated under 47 CFR Part 95, isnt required to transition to narrowband. The narrowbanding effort only affects private land mobile radios regulated under 47 CFR Part 90. However, the commission recently released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (WT Docket No. 10-119) in which it proposes to implement 12.5-kilohertz narrowbanding in the GMRS. (See paragraphs 36 37 of the referenced NPRM.) The NPRM asks questions regarding application of narrowbanding requirements and what would be an appropriate transition period. Question: Is it permissible for users to program radios sold after Jan. 1, 2011, with previous versions of programming software and enable 25kilohertz operations? Answer: Radios manufactured and/or imported prior to Jan. 1, 2011, may be sold and programmed or reprogrammed to enable the 25-kilohertz mode of operation after that date. However, it is not permissible to manufacture and/or import radios after Jan. 1, 2011, that are capable of being programmed or reprogrammed by the user to enable 25-kilohertz operation, because they would be considered to be 25-kilohertz-capable radios even if they are not actually programmed for 25-kilohertz operation when they are delivered to the end user. Question: Will any license, containing frequencies that are affected, that has only wideband emissions be automatically canceled after Jan. 1, 2013? Answer: No. The rules permit narrowband equivalent (such as two or four slots in a 25-kilohertz channel, or 4,800 bits per second per 6.25-kilohertz for data) after Jan. 1, 2013. Therefore, licenses that have only wideband emissions will still be valid for such operations. Question: Do systems now operating as wideband digital networks (20K0F3D) qualify to remain wideband through Jan. 1, 2013, by meeting the efficiency standard if operating at 19.2 kilobits per second (kbps)? And if so, are any notifications to the FCC or other license modifications required?
Photo courtesy Kenwood
Answer: After Jan. 1, 2013, licensees may operate with an authorized bandwidth exceeding 11.25-kilohertz only if they operate with equivalent efficiency (such as two or four slots in a 25-kilohertz channel for voice or 4,800 bits per second per 6.25-kilohertz for data). Question: Is it legal to continue using legacy equipment designed for 25kilohertz operation after Jan. 1, 2013, by adjusting its modulation to meet the 12.5-kilohertz requirements of narrowband emissions? Answer: No. To be compliant with the commissions rules, the radio must be specifically certificated for narrowband use under Part 90. Question: Is it legal to modify a wideband stand-alone receiver (VHF high band) to narrowband by installing new crystal filters in the intermediate frequency (IF) section? This modification has been accomplished on a test receiver in our shop, and because the radio isnt a transmitter, none of the parameters under Part 90 are applicable. We gained about 2 dBm signal to noise and distortion (SINAD) following the modification. Answer: The authorization requirements for receivers are in Section 15.101 unintentional radiators. They apply to receivers that tune within the range of 30 960 MHz and to CB receivers and radar detectors. The receiver in question is described as VHF high band and would fall within this frequency range, so its subject to authorization under Part 15. If its a scanning receiver, it requires certification. If not, it would fall under the category of all other receivers subject to Part 15 and would require authorization under either certification or declaration of conformity (DoC). When equipment is modified by a party other than the original grantee or responsible party, the person performing the modifications becomes the new responsible party. Section 2.909 addresses this for both certified equipment (paragraph a) and equipment authorized under DoC (paragraph c). Section 2.1073(d) states that equipment authorized under DoC shall be retested for compliance if any modifications are made by the responsible party that could adversely affect the emanation characteristics of the equipment. DoC testing must be done at an accredited laboratory per Section 2.948(a)(3). Section 2.1043 permits certain changes to be made to certified equipment. However, except for changes to software-defined radio (SDR) software, only the grantee of certification can make these. See Section 2.1043(b)(4). If another party makes changes, then a new certification would be required.
Please note that Section 15.1 prohibits the operation of intentional or unintentional radiators that dont comply with the administrative and technical requirements of Part 15, including the equipment authorization requirement. Question: What is the FCCs proposal for handling 25-kilohertz equipment shipments for one-way paging application scenarios, which are exempt from the narrowbanding rules [90.203(j)(7)]? Answer: 90.203(j)(7) constitutes an exception from the general prohibition in 90.203(j)(10). Transmitters designed only for one-way paging operations may still be manufactured and imported after Jan. 1, 2011. There is a request pending for a stay of the 2011 deadlines. Action on that request would obviously change or moot some rules. Question: Are manufacturers allowed to build and ship 25-kilohertz equipment within the United States as long as the customer/ship destination is a non-FCC licensee (non-U.S. international customers, U.S. federal, etc.)? If so, are there any detailed labeling or order processing expectations associated with this allowance? Answer: No, there is no exception in the rules for equipment intended for export. The rules contain no special labeling requirement for 25-kilohertz equipment intended for export. But equipment manufactured solely for export is exempt pursuant to Section 2.807 of the rules and Section 302(c) of the Communications Act. Indeed, the commission specifically stated in the narrowbanding proceeding that the deadline didnt apply to equipment intended for export. See implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking, WT Docket No. 99-87, 15 FCC Rcd 22709, 22773 n.394 (2000). Question: Will 150 160 and 450 460 itinerant frequencies also be subject to 12.5-kilohertz requirements? Answer: The various itinerant frequencies are subject to varying requirements. Regarding the VHF high band, some of the itinerant frequencies often previously referred to as the color dot channels were moved from Part 90 to the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS) under Part 95 (see WT Docket No. 98-182 and 47 CFR Part 95, Subpart J and 47 CFR 95.632) and some remained in Part 90. Of those itinerant frequencies that remained in Part 90, most were created as narrowband channels in the refarming
proceeding and may only be assigned for narrowband use. 151.640 MHz is limited to 6.25-kilohertz operations, and 151.5125, 151.700, 151.760, 154.5275 and 158.4075 MHz are limited to 12.5-kilohertz operations. The remaining two VHF high band itinerant channels 151.505 and 158.400 MHz are subject to the narrowbanding rules, and stations must narrowband by Jan. 1, 2013. The rest of the VHF high band itinerant channels were moved to the MURS. Under those rules (see 47 CFR 95.632), 151.820, 151.880 and 151.940 MHz are authorized for 12.5-kilohertz channels, and 154.570 and 154.600 MHz are authorized for 25-kilohertz channels. However, notwithstanding those requirements, rule section 95.1317 provides for grandfathered operation of previously granted Part 90 licenses on those frequencies. The rule states that [s]tations that were licensed under Part 90 of the commissions rules to operate on MURS frequencies as of Nov. 13, 2000, are granted a license by rule that authorizes continued operations under the terms of such nullified Part 90 authorizations, including any rule waivers. Therefore, stations operating on 25-kilohertz MURS channels prior to Nov. 13, 2000, may continue wideband operation, and all stations may operate using 25-kilohertz channels on 154.570 and 154.600 MHz. The UHF itinerant channels werent moved to the MURS and are subject to the Jan. 1, 2013, narrowbanding deadline. These channels are: 451.800, 456.800, 457.500, 464.500, 469.500 and 469.550 MHz. All other UHF itinerant channels were created as narrowband channels in the refarming proceeding and have always been subject to narrowband use. 451.80625, 451.81875, 456.80625 and 456.81875 MHz are limited to 6.25-kilohertz operations, and 451.8125 and 456.8125 MHz are limited to 12.5-kilohertz operations. Question: Are the VHF low band frequencies (30 50 MHz) affected by narrowbanding? Does the FCC have future plans for these frequencies or will they be left as is? Answer: The VHF low band isnt subject to the narrowbanding rules, and the commission has no current plans to change the rules for these channels. If the FCC were to consider changes for these channels, it would be done through a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Question: Are the 453.xxx frequencies subject to narrowbanding by the Jan. 1, 2013, deadline?
Answer: Yes. Question: Can an end user re-certify MastrII/Micor transmitters for narrowband? Can I do the recertification using field grade service monitors, or will I need the services of an FCC-certified lab? I want to modify several VHF MSF5000 base stations and repeaters using the Communications Specialists 12.5-kilohertz kits. What do I need to do to comply with the FCC regulations? What is the procedure that I need to follow to recertify my equipment? Do I have to send the equipment to the FCC? Answer: If a kit is used to modify a radio to bring it into compliance with the narrowband rules, the radio must be recertified to show compliance with those rules. Regardless of who actually modifies the radio and the equipment used to do so, the party that submits the new application for equipment approval becomes the responsible party for that radio. That party would be required to place the new FCC ID label on the device. If this party is also a distributor or a manufacturer, the party could modify the same radios in a similar manner and place the new FCC ID label on the modified radio. If a different party were to use the same kit to modify a radio, they would need to submit that modified radio for a new certification and become the responsible party for those modified radios. For guidance on how to apply for an FCC equipment authorization, refer to guidance at www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ea_app_info.html. The modified devices need to be certified. Question: The FCC, in public notice DA 09-2589, stated that under certain circumstances previously certified multimode equipment can be manufactured or imported after Jan. 1, 2011. Specifically, the public notice stated that the equipment certification for previously certified multimode equipment containing a wideband 25-kilohertz mode will continue to be valid, and such equipment may continue to be manufactured and imported, only if the modes of operation are enabled primarily through software rather than firmware or hardware, and users arent provided with the programming software necessary to activate the wideband 25-kilohertz mode. Based on this, please clarify the following. Are manufacturers required to modify radios so that previous versions of programming software with 25-kilohertz capability cant be used? This assumes the previous version of programming software is replaced by a new version with
no 25-kilohertz capability and the previous version is no longer sold. Answer: Manufacturers must ensure that equipment manufactured or imported after the transition date has the 25-kilohertz capability disabled. If this is done through programming software, then the appropriate software must be modified to comply with this requirement, and the previous version of the software must be updated or replaced. Question: Will tightening the frequency stability to below 2.5 parts per million (PPM) make a system compliant? Answer: No. To be compliant with the FCCs rules, the radio must be specifically certificated for narrowband use under Part 90. Additionally, the FCC Knowledge Database (KDB) details the subject of permissive changes as it relates to Part 90 refarming. The KDB page is available at: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm ?id=20292&switch=P Question (from FCC KDB): How will new applications and permissive change applications be handled for wideband and narrowband equipment in the Part 90 re-farming bands? Answer (from FCC KDB): In WT Docket 99-87, FCC 03-34, the commission adopted new frequency bands for transmitters under Part 90 of the FCC rules. Under the new rules, equipment in the Part 90 re-farming frequency bands 150 174 and 421 512 MHz will no longer be issued with a 25kilohertz emission designator. The new rules prohibit Equipment authorization of devices with 25-kilohertz channel spacing after Dec. 31, 2004. The current policy to address this timeline is: New Grants: Applications for new equipment authorization received before Jan. 1, 2005, will be granted with a wideband (25-kilohertz) emission designator as long as the equipment also has a narrowband (12.5- and/or 6.25-kilohertz) emission designator. Applications for new equipment authorization received after Dec. 31, 2004, will not be granted with a wideband emission designator. Permissive Changes: A class I permissive change may not be used to add a narrowband emission designator to a wideband device. Only the FCC or a TCB (within 30 days of grant) may modify the text on a grant, and for a class I permissive change, no filing is submitted. Applications for a class II
permissive change received before Jan. 1, 2005, may be submitted for any modification that meets the definition of a permissive change. The wideband channel will be listed on the grant. A class II permissive change may be submitted to add a narrowband emission designator to a wideband grant if no hardware changes are made to the device. If hardware changes are made to the device, a new FCC ID will be required. When a class II permissive change is submitted to add a narrowband emission designator, only the permissive change grant will show the narrowband emission designator. The original grant will not be modified to show the new narrowband emission designator. Applications for class II permissive changes for wideband-only equipment will not be accepted after Jan. 1, 2005. Applications for class II permissive changes for multimode equipment received after Dec. 31, 2004, will not be granted with a wideband emission designator. A class II permissive change may be submitted to add a narrowband emission designator to a wideband grant if no hardware changes are made to the device. If hardware changes are made to the device, a new FCC ID will be required. If a device that was previously granted with wideband and narrowband emission designators is submitted for a permissive change with modifications unrelated to the emission designators, the permissive change will be granted without the wideband emission designator. Applications for devices with only narrowband emission designators will be processed as they currently are now. Permissive Change Example: Equipment is approved for 25-/12.5kilohertz operation prior to Jan. 1, 2005. After Jan. 1, 2005, a component unrelated to the power output or frequency determining circuitry becomes unavailable and must be replaced with a similar component. The change meets the 2.1043 definition of a permissive change and is tested to determine if a class I or class II permissive change is appropriate. If the test results show a class I change is acceptable, then the process is complete, and the new device may be marketed. If the test results show a class II permissive change is required, an application is then submitted to the FCC or a TCB. For applications received after Jan. 1, 2005, the permissive change grant will not be issued because the original was with both 25- and 12.5-kilohertz emissions, but only with the 12.5-kilohertz emission. When a permissive change is filed for 25-/12.5-kilohertz equipment, the FCC will not require the device to show compliance with the 6.25-kilohertz requirements that become effective Jan. 1, 2005, per 90.203(j)(5). Software Change to Remove Emission: When a software change is
made to a device to remove an approved operating mode/emission designator, no permissive change is required unless the device was approved as a software-defined radio (SDR). If the device was approved as an SDR, a class III permissive change must be filed with the commission. TCBs cannot approve SDRs yet.
Verify Wireless Coverage.

Take the guess-work out of your narrowband migration.
he narrowband transition is expected to result in changes to RF
With STI Field Test 7 you can benchmark your current wireless systems signal coverage and quality, and conrm the coverage and quality of your narrowband signal, taking the guess-work out of your narrowband migration.
coverage and signal quality in larger communications systems regardless of whether or not you are using the narrowband initiative to migrate your system to a digital technology.
Click here to download your copy of, A Practical Guide to Narrowbanding, produced by The Department of Homeland Securitys Ofce of Emergency Communications, and other resources.
877-848-8500 toll-free
local: 503-848-8500 fax: 503-848-8534
www.surveytech.com
email: marketing@surveytech.com
20105a
Section 2: Operations and Procedures

Coordination is Critical, John Johnson ....................................................................25 7 Narrowbanding Tips, Leonard Koehnen ...............................................................29 Fallacies and Facts, Leonard Koehnen ...................................................................34 Narrowbanding Prep, Joe Blaschka Jr ....................................................................36 Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?, Klaus Bender ...............................................41 7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance, Nick Ruark ...............................................47
Sponsored by
25 I Section 2: Operations and Procedures
Coordination is Critical
By John Johnson As many readers know, the last phase of the FCCs narrowbanding mandate will occur Jan. 1, 2013, only one budget cycle away. To meet the deadline, many factors, including financial support, buy-in from local elected officials, the impact to your own agency and coordination, must be considered. The last factor is the most important. To transition to narrowband, plan and prepare now; however, to be successful in narrowbanding, coordinate and plan with the following groups: your agency, other agencies in your jurisdiction, your neighbors and vendors. Your Agency The first area of coordination should be within your agency or department. Its essential that daily users are able to communicate with each other. To ensure a smooth transition to narrowband, first notify agency leadership of the narrowbanding mandate. Explicitly state the impact of what will happen if the agency opts not to transition. Agencies that dont meet the deadline face loss of communications capabilities or fines. Next, coordinate with all radio users to create an inventory of resources and radio equipment. Obtaining an accurate inventory in a timely manner will take cooperation, coordination and participation from all who possess radio equipment. Perhaps this could be accomplished during a shift change or on days off. Therefore, staff availability and overtime costs should be kept in mind when coordinating this phase. During the inventory, collect information about the manufacturer, model and serial number of all radio equipment. Use the inventory to determine which radios need to be replaced or reprogrammed. After completing the inventory, work with agency leaders to develop a narrowbanding transition plan. The plan should prioritize the order in which equipment is narrowbanded. Consider the infrastructure, repeaters, base
Photo courtesy DHS
26 I Coordination is Critical
stations, control stations, mobile radios and handheld radios when creating the prioritized list. Consider resources both personnel and funding required to complete the transition and plan accordingly. In addition to coordinating inventory, the FCC requires that agencies possess several factors on their FCC license to use narrowband frequencies, including: The narrowband emission (11K) Tower heights Transmitter effective radiated power (ERP) Control point/point of contacts (POCs) If any of this information is missing, you will need to modify your FCC license. This is an opportune time to review your FCC license and update any outdated or missing information. Modifying an FCC license takes time and funding that should be accounted for during planning stages. To avoid cancellations of your license or fines, coordinate your license modification and plan accordingly when preparing a narrowbanding budget. Other Agencies in Your Jurisdiction Coordination with other departments and agencies in your jurisdiction is important. If these groups transition to narrowband and you dont, you will no longer be able to communicate with them. To avoid this fate and the ensuing ripple effect, prior to narrowbanding, identify the departments and agencies your emergency responders need to communicate with. A ripple effect is caused when an agency narrowbands but other agencies continue to operate on wideband spectrum; as a result, the agencies are unable to communicate with one another. Identify the narrowbanding POCs within each of these departments and agencies and establish relationships. Work with these POCs to plan for narrowbanding. Neighbors Coordination with neighbors is similar to coordination within your jurisdiction, but the impact area is larger. In this case, neighbors include departments and agencies situated in your region, beyond your jurisdiction. Key steps include identifying the neighboring agencies your agency needs to communicate with including tribal agencies in the region identifying the narrowbanding POCs within each of these agencies and establishing
relationships. You may consider establishing a short-term working group with these individuals. The working group would meet on a regular basis to discuss and plan narrowbanding efforts within the region. Regardless of the approach you take, when planning and preparing with neighbors, consider the following questions: Are your neighbor agencies mandated to complete the narrowbanding transition by local officials or department executives or is it considered voluntary compliance? Does their city or county use a VHF/UHF cross-band, mutual-aid system? When and how do you ensure that departments using your agencys frequency have narrowbanded? How will neighboring agencies fund the narrowbanding transition? Does the region use regional mutual-aid systems, statewide channels, or national fire and law enforcement channels? Do these need to be narrowbanded? The ripple effect discussed earlier becomes larger if regional, tribal, statewide or national mutual-aid channels arent considered during planning stages. For example, in the state of Tennessee, significant coordination is required to ensure the tristate fire mutual-aid channel is minimally impacted. The channel is used by fire departments in and around the Chattanooga area, as well as agencies in Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. Tennessee has two statewide mutual-aid repeaters, one VHF and one UHF, with many locations cross-banded as well as some statewide tactical channels. There is a Tennessee EMS plan that mandates EMS units have specific channels in the ambulances such as 155.205, 155.295 and 155.340. In Tennessee, 155.340 is the channel used for an ambulance to coordinate with hospitals emergency rooms. But 155.340 is designated as a national mutual-aid channel now. National EMS medical channels, national fire mutual-aid channels and the national law-enforcement channel should be kept in mind as well, because these channels are used by volunteers, local and state agencies in addition to federal agencies and will need additional coordination. Vendors Whether you use a commercial radio vendor or have your own departmental
radio shop, radio technicians must be involved in the narrowbanding planning process. The earlier you coordinate your timeline with vendors, the better. Many commercial radio shops may only have one technician and a few installers. They are contending with multiple public-safety customers, as well as business and industrial customers that need to narrowband. Users will compete for their services during a short timeframe. Failure to coordinate with your technician could cause a major delay in meeting the deadline. Disposal of Wideband Equipment Once the narrowband transition is complete, your agency must determine how to dispose of wideband-only equipment. The best option is to coordinate with surplus property representatives to plan for the disposal and sale of equipment. However, before disposing of equipment, ensure that the frequencies and channel elements have been removed. Use caution when reselling equipment to other licensees. Wideband-only equipment should never be resold to a buyer that will put it back in service. To be successful in the narrowband process, coordination on many levels must be accomplished. Working with the other departments and agencies and building relationships will be beneficial down the road, foster interoperability and allow for a more successful response. On Dec. 31, 2012, I plan to enjoy ringing in the new year with family and friends instead of programming or installing radios.
John Johnson is a radio system analyst for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), one of the three major divisions of the military department. Johnson has been with TEMA since 1984 and serves as the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International local frequency advisor for the state of Tennessee, chairman of the 800 MHz National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC), the 700 MHz regional planning committee and the statewide interoperability committee. Johnson also serves on the Safecom narrowbanding working group and is an editorial advisor for MissionCritical Communications. Email comments to jjohnson@tnema.org.
7 Narrowbanding Tips
By Leonard Koehnen We are about to enter the next curve in the road of spectrum refarming. This isnt the first time narrowbanding has happened. When I started on the bench in the early 1960s, we were just beginning to convert radios from very wide channels to the narrow channels we know now. The difference was that then the manufacturers had kits to convert some of the newer radios, and the conversion applied to the 30 50 MHz band as well. I modified many radios and threw more with modulation and receiver bandwidth that couldnt legally be reduced from 10 to 5 kilohertz in the dumpster. I recall the transition wasnt as forgiving, and one large Midwest police department received three years of waivers from the FCC for economic reasons. This time the FCC gave us about 18 years of notice and a phased schedule. If businesses and governmental entities were attentive to their fleets, the conversion would be just a visit from the radio technicians, a few key clicks on their computer for each radio, and a complete conversion. Unfortunately, inattentiveness to the fleet and economic reasons now have led some to near panic. 1. Be Prepared During 2007 2008, I narrowbanded a multichannel VHF radio system for Door County, Wis. Most of the countys fixed station inventory included Mastr IIIs purchased during 1998 2004. Most of the user radio fleet was also purchased during the same period. I was concerned about the early Mastr III stations. Ericsson phased in narrowbanding capability in early 1998, but there wasnt a clear demarcation date. As older wideband modules were drawn from inventory, capable modules were built into stations. Therefore, you can have a first-quarter 1998 Mastr III station with no, partial and full capability. Partial capability means it cant be narrowbanded. All the modules must be narrowband capable. We tested some of the 1998 Mastr III stations and found the sample to be capable of being narrowbanded. We also tested a sample of the early Kenwood 90 series mobiles and found them capable as well. Some 90 series Kenwood portables required software upgrades, but
30 I 7 Narrowbanding Tips
in the end, they appeared ready. Once you start narrowbanding a system, there is no turning back. You are committed. Therefore, its important to be ready, have assurances the conversion will be successful, have the users of the fleet ready and then start. We had some unexpected surprises during the process. Radios with anticipated problems had no problems, and the ones with high expectations of success had some surprises. One 90 series Kenwood mobile in the mid-serial number range wouldnt narrowband. Fortunately, the user was a quiet talker and in effect, self narrowbanded his radio. However, his radio will need to be replaced before 2013. Some of the new inexpensive radios had poor compandering. The radio worked better with the compandering turned off. One big surprise was from users who self narrowbanded. A user who talks quietly either by poor radio use habits or a soft voice can effectively narrowband a radio. A normal wideband radio operator should modulate at least 4 kilohertz. Quiet talkers modulate in the 2-kilohertz range. When you narrowband a radio, normal voice drops to 2 kilohertz, but the quiet talkers drop to 1 kilohertz and essentially cant be heard. This is not FCC approved, but before 2013, if a radio will not narrowband, put the radio in a soft talkers vehicle, and it will buy you time. You still need to replace that radio by 2013. You also need to train the quiet talker to talk louder or use the radio properly. 2. Paging Inconsistencies Wideband fixed stations have problems modulating paging tones below 350 hertz. A technician must adjust the higher paging tones to modulate a wideband transmitter to two-thirds system modulation or about 3.5 kilohertz. When you do that, the paging tones below 350 hertz cant modulate at that level. Some barely modulate at 2 kilohertz because of effects of the pre-emphasis circuitry in the radio. If you set the level for the lower tones, the higher tones go into distortion. Older reach formats will have issues with tones above 2 kilohertz. The very low and very high tones modulate at less than the recommended rate and become unreliable when you narrowband. There are also inconsistencies in the FCC narrowbanding requirements for paging channels. Generally, if the paging channel is listed in FCC Rule Part 90 as a paging channel, it doesnt have to be narrowbanded. This doesnt necessarily mean the channel you use for paging you have to refer to the FCC rules. This affects fire paging systems, most of which are categorized
as base-mobile channels by the FCC and not paging. One exception to the paging exemption is 163.250 MHz, a hospital paging channel. Because this was originally a federal channel, federal narrowbanding rules apply. In effect, the channel is on loan from the federal pool to the public-safety pool, and its original federal rules apply. The other hospitalpaging channel, 152.0075 MHz, is exempt from narrowbanding requirements. The EMS frequencies of 150.775 and 150.790 MHz are also federally loaned frequencies. They have to be narrowbanded, but there doesnt seem to be any tertiary channels listed within Part 90 resulting from narrowbanding. My guess is the federal pool has retained them. 3. Tertiary Channels Just because a radio can narrowband doesnt mean it can operate on a new channel created by the narrowbanding process. Radios synthesize the radio channel from a master crystal oscillator. An example might be an electronic piano. The sound frequency of the bottom key and the spacing between keys is known by the synthesizer. From there, the mathematics within the synthesizer can calculate the frequency of all other keys. Mobile radio synthesis works the same way. Many radios manufactured before 2004 dont have the mathematics to calculate the new tertiary frequencies. Therefore, 153.770 MHz will narrowband in all narrowband-capable radios, but 153.7775 MHz may not even be programmable. If you are adding new frequencies to your system, attempt to program these frequencies before you narrowband the system. Some manufacturers have software upgrades to modify the mathematical formula in the synthesizer. This is generally a VHF problem. 4. Loss of Range If you convert your radio system from wideband analog to narrowband analog, the laws of physics report you will lose range. Some radio systems have enough headroom to tolerate this, while others dont. However, if you have a marginal area, it will only become worse. Because the loss of range is nonlinear, narrowbanding will have a greater effect on a system that only produces 90 percent service area coverage than one with 95 percent service area coverage. If you convert to a digital voice format such as Project 25 (P25), you will gain this loss back plus some gain because of the healing effects of digital signal processing (DSP).
5. Interoperability Coordination If you operate a public-safety radio system, interoperability with your neighbors is important. To keep from reprogramming your fleet repeatedly as each of your neighbors converts on different schedules, meet with them and set a common timeline of conversion. Otherwise, you could be reprogramming repeatedly as each neighbor converts its radio system. At $40 $50 per radio, this becomes expensive. If you need to replace your fleet, buy radios with 128 channels or more. Then you can have a mode for County A wideband and County A narrowband, County B wideband and County B narrowband, etc. Then in 2013, you can reprogram your fleet once more to take out all of the wideband modes. 6. Fallacies, Lies and Misinterpretations There are many people spreading misinformation regarding narrowbanding. The FCC needs to begin a serious public question and answer with the industry on unique situations so everybody is informed from a legal source. There are instances where you can remain wideband after 2013. Some of them are: If you can operate with four voice subchannels on a wide channel for example, 4:1 channel efficiency; If you can demonstrate you are transmitting a digital signal equal to or faster than 19.2 kilobits per second (kbps); If you lease (or own) your radio channel from a band manager of an FCC Part 22 radio frequency pool. These are the old paging and mobile telephone channels. Beware, you may not be able to purchase wideband radios in the future to operate on Part 22 spectrum; and Ham operators, operating under FCC Rule Part 97 are exempt from narrowbanding. If you have some good wideband radios, offer them to your Amateur Radio Disaster Services (ARES) or Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES) group, and your old radios can continue to help you. 7. The 2011 Budget What happens when your fleet is almost ready to narrowband, but you have no 2010 funds left in your budget? The FCC gave you a reprieve June 30, when it changed its rules for manufacturers. Licensees now have budget years 2011 and 2012 to purchase wideband-capable radios. Narrowbanding is at our doorstep. Now is the time to plan, schedule and
test your questionable radios. Schedule a meeting with your radio service agency to review your status. Schedule a meeting with your neighbors to coordinate conversion dates.
Leonard Koehnen, PE, is a consulting engineer from St. Paul, Minn. He is a member of the MissionCritical Communications editorial advisory board. In 2011, he celebrated 50 years of work in the electronic communications industry. E-mail comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
Fallacies and Facts

By Leonard Koehnen There is a great deal of misinformation throughout the industry regarding narrowbanding, and following is a list of fallacies and facts: Fallacy: The FCC will relent in the end because of the economy and give public safety an extension. Fact: The FCC published a report in January 2010, stating it will not relent. Be prepared for no reprieve. Even if there is, the adjacent narrowband channels are being assigned, and unless you narrowband, you will experience interference from them. Fallacy: Everybody must narrowband again in 2017 so you shouldnt spend a lot of money now. Fact: There is a 2017 rule for 700 MHz users to migrate to 6.25-channel equivalency but not anybody else. Fallacy: You must go to Project 25 (P25) digital voice. Fact: By Jan. 1, 2013, the maximum you must transmit is 12.5-kilohertz channel analog voice. You can employ P25 on that channel if you want. Fallacy: You must scrap your system and migrate to a statewide trunked system. Fact: There is no such requirement. Fallacy: You must go to 700 or 800 MHz. Fact: There is no such requirement. Fallacy: If you join the state network, your fire-paging channel does not have to be narrowbanded. Fact: There is no such privilege afforded to the states.
35 I Narrowbanding Fallacies and Facts
Fallacy: We are so far out in a rural area, the FCC will never know we havent narrowbanded. Fact: You may be in the rural area but your signals can skip 100 200 miles in the spring and fall. If you interfere with a legally operating narrowband system, that user can file a complaint, and the FCC may take action against you. Fallacy: Im going to use my old wideband radios for temporary or close-in work. Maybe I will take them to my hunting or lake cabin. Fact: Same as above. Fallacy: The radio shop will just add a third-party aftermarket device to narrowband my wideband-only radios. Fact: The FCC recently told MissionCritical Communications that this isnt permitted. The radio or kit to narrowband a radio must be designed by the radios manufacturer and type accepted with the radio to operate in the narrowband mode (See Frequently Asked Questions, Page 14). Fallacy: The radio shop has played with our radios, and by tweaking them, they can make them operate narrowband. Fact: This isnt permitted. The FCC has ruled that the radio must be designed and type accepted by the original manufacturer to be narrowbanded or it cant be used after Jan. 1, 2013.
Narrowbanding Prep
By Joe Blaschka Jr. The unstoppable countdown toward the end of wideband communications continues. Each second that goes by reduces the time available for user awareness, planning, budgeting and implementing the changes that will result Jan. 1, 2013. Time is running out to complete the tasks that may be required to make the transition without loss of service or operating in crisis mode. For more than four decades, two-way FM LMRs used a standard operating bandwidth of 20 kilohertz with a transmitter deviation of 5 kilohertz. FCC rulings during the past 10 years or so have aimed to reduce the standard operating bandwidth first to 12.5 kilohertz with a deviation of 2.5 kilohertz and ultimately to a 6.25-kilohertz bandwidth. In the late 1990s, the FCC required that any new type of accepted equipment be capable of 12.5-kilohertz operation. This change has resulted in a significant quantity of narrowbandcapable equipment currently being in service. FCC officials thought that licensees would voluntarily move to narrowband technology, and by now, everybody would be operating in narrowband channels. In 2003, to speed the process, the FCC issued new rules requiring all users in the VHF and UHF bands to convert to narrowband operation by Jan. 1, 2013. To make sure there was equipment in place to meet the deadline, the commission set Jan. 1, 2011, as the last date equipment capable of wideband operation could be manufactured or imported in the United States. After Jan. 1, 2011, any new radio purchased could very well not operate properly with the existing wideband system. Any licensee still using low-band (30 50 MHz) or 800 MHz can breathe a sigh of relief, because those bands are exempt from being narrowbanded. Implementation Several aspects of making the transition to narrowband should be
37 I Narrowbanding Prep
considered: awareness, financial, operational, equipment and transition planning. 1. Awareness. Many radio users are unaware of the upcoming narrowband transition. There still is time to act and begin the planning process, but time is rapidly ticking away given planning and budget cycles. Everyone should be talking about this issue at board meetings, fire and police chief gatherings, city staff meetings, company staff meetings and EMS councils, and vendors should advise their customers of this change. This awareness needs to occur on a state- and regionwide basis as well. For example, many emergency medical systems operate with the expectation that medical teams and vehicles can be used statewide. This means virtually every hospital, each with individual budgeting processes and technical capabilities, needs to be included in the narrowband transition planning. Awareness also includes the personnel and financial resources required to make the narrowband transition. If other projects are being contemplated during this same timeframe, there may not be adequate resources to accomplish all tasks. If planning is done across multiple agencies, each agency needs to allocate resources to narrowbanding tasks. 2. Financial. The time to plan and budget anything for 2010 is probably gone for many government agencies given that preliminary budgets need to be submitted in the summer and fall of 2009. Because narrowbanding must be completed by Jan. 1, 2013, implementation must occur during 2012 or earlier only two budget cycles away. The budgeting and planning process has to start no later than next year if the compliance dates are to be met. Unlike 800 MHz rebanding, there is no Nextel equivalent to pay for this transition. There may be some money through various grant processes for interoperable communications. However, federal grants are competitive, and there is no guarantee an individual licensee will be successful in obtaining grant funding. Start now to find funding. 3. Operational. Operations may be affected by reduced coverage. This will depend on each situation, and narrowband and wideband radios will not interoperate together well. Coverage is the first issue to evaluate. There could be a significant reduction in coverage after narrowbanding, requiring the addition of voting receivers or additional transmitter sites depending on each specific case. The other aspect is that the narrow deviation and overall reduction in FM signal-to-noise ratio make a system less tolerant to low audio from users
radios. This problem is exacerbated by the use of speaker-mics resulting in low talk-in volume. The use of audio processors to assist in boosting the audio levels has worked well in some installations. 4. Equipment. The amount of old equipment still in service is amazing not just equipment from the 1990s, but Motorola Mocom 70s and Micors, GE Mastr IIs and more. In many cases, this equipment has been relegated to third-tier apparatus, backup use, volunteer search and rescue groups, and similar uses. However, there is also a considerable quantity of front-line equipment from the early- to mid-1990s still in service that isnt narrowband compatible. Most equipment purchased after 1998 will have narrowband capability on the existing channels, but may not work on the new narrowband channels. In most cases, that shouldnt be a problem, because most of the transitions are occurring on existing channels. Inventory all equipment including base stations and backup and reserve equipment, along with model, serial number and number of channels each unit is capable of. Determine the wide/narrowband capability of each unit. If the equipment is only capable of wideband operation, list it as needing replacement. When replacing old equipment with new narrowband equipment, check specifications when operating in the narrowband mode carefully. Radios that had excellent specifications when in wideband mode may have only average specifications when operating in narrowband mode. Adjacent channel protection may not be as good as before. The need to operate in both wideband and narrowband modes during a transition could result in requiring twice the number of channels in radios. This could force even narrowband-capable radios to be replaced, because they will not have the capacity to support both modes during the transition. Most fire paging transmitters must be converted to narrowband operation. This will affect hundreds if not thousands of fire alerting pagers in an area. In some places, Plectron and Motorola fire alerting receivers are still in use; its doubtful those will continue to work after the conversion to narrowband. There is quite a debate about the need to convert to digital as part of the narrowbanding process. There is no FCC requirement to convert existing wideband systems to digital operation as part of this stage of narrowbanding. There are many analog narrowband systems in operation, and many if not all, existing systems could be converted to narrowband without transitioning to digital systems. While digital technology may offer range similar to wideband operation, in many cases, the complexity and cost of converting to
digital far outweighs the coverage improvements. 5. Transition Planning. Many small systems can be converted in a day, possibly on the weekend, resulting in a simple and easy conversion. But most systems will require detailed and extensive transition planning to maintain proper operation. In addition, the wider issue of local and regional interoperability needs to be considered. The transition will require significant financial and personnel resources. Depending on a licensees in-house capabilities, consultants or vendors may be needed to assist with the planning and engineering. Interoperability. Most government systems and some commercial systems need to interoperate with other agencies or entities. In addition, many large fleets will take many days, weeks or even months to become narrowband ready. During the transition time, the ability to intercommunicate between wideband and narrowband units will be required. In most cases, this means programming channels in both the wideband and narrowband modes until the transition is complete. At that time, the old wideband channels must be removed, resulting in the radios being required to be programmed twice. Most areas have statewide fire and police channels used for interoperability and mutual-aid responses. As areas start to convert, first responders may need to know if they should be communicating on the law interoperability channel in wideband or narrowband mode. In general, the fewer radio decisions that need to be made when responding to an emergency the better. Its often hard enough to get responders on the right channels, and making sure they are all on narrowband or wideband adds a significant amount of complexity. Its easier for users in a given region to convert at about the same time. I hope that wont be during the last quarter of 2012. Planning. The transition of most systems will involve base station, mobile and portable equipment. However, depending on the coverage predictions, additional sites, voting receiver equipment and base station equipment could be required. This could mean a conversion to simulcast to get the desired coverage. It could also mean changes to the existing console system. The coverage analysis for both talk-in and talk-out will be the starting place to determine how much of the system design must change. Implementation time and budget are directly tied to any system design changes. The need for additional sites could trigger permit applications, lease agreements and many other nontechnical processes that can take
many months to complete. Just as with rebanding, there will be a shortage of resources to implement narrowbanding. If everyone waits until the last half of 2012 to begin implementing, resources will be limited.
Joe Blaschka Jr. is the principal at Adcomm Engineering and a registered professional engineer (P.E.) in eight states. Blaschka has been working in the communications field for almost 40 years, obviously starting in kindergarten. He has authored numerous papers and presentations. E-mail comments to j.blaschka@adcomm911.com.
Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?

By Klaus Bender The last several years have marked some of the biggest regulatory issues facing a normally calm land-mobile industry in quite some time. Licensees in the 800 MHz band are reconfiguring their systems to eliminate interference with publicsafety operations a multiyear process that will not be completed as originally scheduled. The FCC, partially because of 800 MHz reconfiguration, has frozen frequencies in the 900 MHz landmobile band. Now the rest of the land-mobile community is preparing for the next big thing: the mandatory equipment reconfiguration for users of frequencies between 150 and 512 MHz using older, wideband equipment. This process, once referred to as refarming, is now generally known as narrowbanding the land-mobile channels. Narrowbanding impacts all industry segments. The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) recently completed a research project surveying members about their plans to comply with the narrowband directive. UTC asked small- and largesized firms a series of questions related to the technology they use now, what they would like to upgrade to and the importance of mobile data in the process of radio dispatch. UTC also asked about the direct migration to 6.25 kilohertz, nontraditional solutions and the use of commercial carriers. The following survey results provide some insight into the land-mobile industrys progress toward the upcoming federal mandate. Mandate Details The FCCs effort to increase spectrum efficiency for users of frequencies licensed under Part 90 began in 1992. The FCC created channels with available bandwidths of 12.5 and 6.25 kilohertz and allowed licensees to use existing channels with the smaller bandwidths to relieve spectrum congestion. Early in the process, the FCC elected not to fix a mandatory migration date from 25
Photo courtesy Adcomm Engineering
42 I Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?
kilohertz voice operations down to 12.5 kilohertz. In late 2004, the FCC set dates associated with the transition process with the final deadline of Jan. 1, 2013, which is now less than five years away. To comply with the new rules, voice radio systems must be able to provide one voice conversation in 12.5-kilohertz bandwidth or less. Data systems must have a channel efficiency of 4.8 kilobits per second (kbps) per 6.25-kilohertz bandwidth. Licenses for the systems that arent converted by the 2013 deadline will be cancelled, with the licensees subject to whatever fine the FCC chooses to impose. The FCC elected not to identify a specific date for further migration to 6.25-kilohertz technology, but encouraged licensees to migrate directly from 25 to 6.25 kilohertz prior to 2013 if suitable equipment is available. Three manufacturers offer 6.25-kilohertz-compliant equipment. The regulatory uncertainty associated with narrowbanding to 6.25 kilohertz has impacted the progress of 12.5-kilohertz migration; licensees must weigh their options in case their investments in new technology become stranded assets in 10 years if the market moves in a different direction. Thousands of land-mobile licensees need to upgrade their equipment, and potentially millions of radios need replaced or modified. Large licensees will spend millions of dollars bringing their systems into compliance. Many firms are already slowly updating radios as older units need to be repaired or replaced. The challenge for the land-mobile industry is informing small licensees that have been using the same radio systems for 20 years that they must now replace the radios with a more efficient technology. Like the 800 MHz rebanding effort, these small companies or agencies often dont believe the FCC will enforce the new standards. However, delaying addressing this issue could create significant financial pressure in the future. Industry Survey Results The capital costs of upgrading radio equipment can be significant and require management approval. The approval may come from the management of a utility company, a state budget committee or a group of county commissioners. One of the first questions asked during the budget approval process is What is everyone else doing? The following addresses concerns of critical-infrastructure providers and the land-mobile industry. Technology. Firms looking at a complete system replacement are also seeking new or improved functionality. Channel-efficient trunking technologies and digital modulation are evaluated when the system size justifies such
consideration. More efficient use of the radio spectrum ultimately means fewer base station radios and dollars. Owners of small systems with one base station and a handful of mobiles are more likely to do a radio-for-radio upgrade. Consider that some of the systems replaced are more than 20 years old. There are more bells and whistles on current LMR equipment, and users want access to those enhancements. Desired functionality includes backhaul over broadband networks to reduce the cost of multiple base stations and wide-area deployments. Man down, or emergency override calling capability, is as much a concern for utilities as it is for public safety. Integration of IP into voice-communications systems makes the radios addressable from the corporate backbone network, facilitating text messaging and instant messaging to groups of users. The enhancements improve workforce productivity and may justify the cost of a system upgrade. 12.5 or 6.25 Kilohertz. The survey showed companies that have already committed to, or are planning, a narrowband equipment change are using 12.5kilohertz bandwidth, either in analog or digital mode. While 6.25-kilohertz equipment is available in various forms, these systems use proprietary modulation. The prices for 6.25-kilohertz radios and infrastructure are competitive with other technologies, and further competition will continue to drive pricing down. System interoperability plays a major role in this decision, and firms that need to talk to their neighbors whether public-safety systems or those in the energy sector want to make sure radios will communicate with each other during an emergency. Early adopters of 6.25-kilohertz modulation will be small, stand-alone systems. Further standardization of 6.25-kilohertz modulation will occur as the 2011 deadline for dual-mode equipment approaches. Voice vs. Data. The use of data for workforce management is increasing in the critical-infrastructure industry. Routine work assignments are often displayed on computer screens with graphics and other necessary information. Voice communications remains critical for emergency situations, but an increasing percentage of workforce vehicles are equipped with both voice and data communications, impacting the spectrum requirements for advanced systems. Unfortunately, the pieces of bandwidth available to land-mobile licensees are squeezed into smaller chunks, resulting in shrinking data rates in an era when bandwidth is critical to providing up-to-date information to workers in the field. A data rate of 9.6 kbps is no longer sufficient for workforce data communications. Some utilities are solving these problems by installing Wi-Fi hot spots in substations so that work crews can pick up necessary data throughout the day.
Firms with high-data-rate requirements are likely to look toward the following mixed solutions. Frequency Bands. Lower frequencies, those in the VHF 150 MHz band, remain the favorite of licensees with rugged, mountainous terrain. New trunked VHF systems are being designed and implemented, primarily in the western part of the United States by public-safety agencies and utilities. UHF remains crowded, but some firms are looking at trunked system designs in this band. The 900 MHz band is an opportunity for the few licensees that already have some licenses in this range a concession by the FCC on the freeze on activity here. FCC officials say they are closer to the finish line than the starting line related to the 900 MHz rulemaking, so perhaps a decision will be released soon. The cost of a wide-area 900 MHz network may be double that of a lower frequency design because of the bands propagation characteristics, which weighs heavily in the return on investment (ROI) calculations. Alternative Spectrum Options. These solutions provide frequencies for land-mobile use outside the normal site-by-site licensing process. Large enterprise systems create a financial challenge to licensees faced with narrowbanding. Many industries have seen consolidation through mergers and acquisitions. The narrowbanding challenge is increased when the communications systems of large firms are made up of disparate, smaller systems. The existing equipment environment often includes combined VHF and UHF systems, pieced together into a working system at the time of a merger. The FCC comes along and says these radios all need to be replaced, and now the licensee has a significant radio design project on its hands. Alternative spectrum solutions, such as leased or purchased spectrum, are attractive for firms that can afford it, because buying or leasing spectrum allows the agency to build a systemwide, ubiquitous solution with less regulatory uncertainty. Firms committed to their land-mobile systems will consider the increased costs associated with purchasing or leasing spectrum in their planning for system upgrades. The 217 222 MHz band, as well as other channels below 1 GHz sold at auction, are leased and sold. Commercial Solutions. The financial impact of an industrywide equipment replacement on land-mobile licensees hasnt escaped the attention of commercial carriers, who are targeting public safety, utility and other traditional land-mobile markets with products that combine voice and data services. The carriers are agreeing to service-level agreements (SLAs) to convince land-mobile licensees that commercial services have the reliability associated with private
land-mobile operations. Large contracts will make carriers consider modifying buildout schedules for rural areas and even consider access to infrastructure when pricing their services. Firms with towers, poles and building rooftop space available for cellular or PCS antennas are assets to the carriers, and these firms can reap financial benefit. Some firms are retaining their private-fixed and mobile-data networks and using commercial providers for voice communications. Others are using commercial 3G and 4G solutions from carriers for data to workers or vehicles and using the least-costly solution for land-mobile dispatch. Clearly, small firms with a few radios will evaluate the cost of replacing these radios with their narrowband equivalents or just signing up with a commercial carrier. Business cases can be made for either option. Public safety and critical infrastructure will lean toward maintaining private-radio systems, while others will opt for the nearly universal coverage of commercial networks. But for the most part, missioncritical communications will remain on private-communications networks, according to survey data. Costs. Interview respondents who have completed system upgrades were often reluctant to discuss what they paid for their new systems. Those who did were large utilities with service territories of more than 1,000 square miles and more than 1,000 handheld and portable radios, with a hundred or more base stations. Some utilities moved out of the frequencies below 512 MHz and went to 800 MHz. All in all, survey respondents say their system costs averaged between $14 million and $30 million. While pricing for commercial systems wasnt revealed, there is recognition that the financial savings with commercial providers has to be balanced against the reliability, coverage and capacity losses. For rough calculations, mobile and portable radios for the land-mobile bands can cost between $600 and $3,000 each. Base station radios will cost from $3,000 to more than $10,000 each. Including trunked operations will add controller costs to the base station, as will any of the 6.25-kilohertz compliant solutions available now. If you want radios that communicate through the corporate IP network, you will add costs associated with switches and other network hardware. What Now? The challenge for the FCC and land-mobile trade associations is getting the word out to small companies and agencies that dont follow FCC rules as much
as they should. The general consensus is that the FCC will not look favorably on requests for relief because a licensee didnt know about the narrowbanding mandate. By 2013, this rulemaking will be 21 years old; there is no excuse for not knowing about it. Noncompliant systems will be cancelled; the time to get equipment upgrades into the budget cycle is now. The business frequency coordination agencies and public-safety coordinators are good resources for licensees who need help. Law firms specializing in land-mobile communications can help with complex issues, and companies that provide land-mobile licensing services are resources as well. Manufacturers sales representatives will let you know your options. E-mail groups have formed to discuss the issue. The process of complying with the narrowbanding rules is similar to what firms are doing to comply with the 800 MHz reconfiguration efforts. FCC licenses need to be reviewed and brought up to date. Radios need to be inventoried to develop an exact count to budget for the process. Good planning and the support of management will assure the timely completion of a project. The landmobile industry continues to be dynamic, and the next few years will be no less exciting than those we have just completed. The time frame for this effort is now on the same order as 800 MHz rebanding and will involve significantly more radios. A look to lessons learned during 800 MHz reconfiguration will certainly streamline the narrowbanding effort for the rest of the land-mobile community. Showing company and agency management that narrowbanding issues impact everyone using land-mobile equipment may ease the process of getting budgets approved. The fact that alternatives are available may complicate the planning process. The outcome the FCC and industry seek is spectrally efficient communications using the best technology available. We also hope that spectral efficiency can translate into workforce efficiency. We have less than five years to figure out how to do it.
Klaus Bender, P.E., is UTCs director of engineering. He provides technical expertise for UTCs spectrum services, FCC license management and research efforts. Bender is a professional engineer with more than 25 years of experience in telecommunications engineering matters. E-mail comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance

By Nick Ruark The following seven steps are necessary to successfully meet and comply with the FCCs Jan. 1, 2013, narrowband deadline for all Part 90 business, educational, industrial, public-safety, and local and state government twoway radio system licensees currently operating legacy wideband (25 kilohertz) voice dispatch or data/supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) radio systems in the 150 174 MHz (VHF) and 421 512 MHz (UHF) bands. 1. Verify that your company or organization has a current and valid FCC Part 90 radio station license. A license is required to legally operate any Part 90 VHF or UHF radio system. This license may have been issued directly to your company or organization or to a third-party repeater service provider. If you are unable to verify that a current license for your system exists, contact a local professional radio/wireless communications system vendor, reputable and qualified FCC licensing assistance service, or an FCC-certified frequency coordinator immediately to avoid any loss of use of your radio system or any penalties for unauthorized or illegal operation. 2. Conduct a full inventory of all radios in your system, including all portable, mobile, dispatcher used, wireless data or SCADA, and on- or offsite base or repeater radios. Its important to list the specific makes and model numbers of all radios inventoried. It might also be wise to note the serial numbers of each for internal tracking purposes. 3. Contact a local professional two-way radio service vendor to help you determine which models are capable of being reprogrammed for narrowband operation and which models arent. Any radio that cant be reprogrammed to narrowband operation must be replaced. Most new radios procured during the past seven to nine years should be narrowband ready; however, its recommended that all currently used radios in a system be verified as narrowband capable. 4. Initiate the internal business process of budgeting for and procuring any new narrowband-capable replacement radios as necessary. Any new radios procured should not be programmed for narrowband operation at this time.
48 I 7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance
Operating in mixed mode such as using both wideband and narrowband radios on the same frequency is not recommended, particularly in data or SCADA systems. If possible, any new narrowband radios procured should continue to operate in the wideband mode until the actual switch from wideband to narrowband operation is made. 5. Develop a wideband-to-narrowband conversion plan that reflects wellcoordinated logistical and implementation strategies needed to accommodate the replacement and installation of any new narrowband-capable off-site base or repeater station radio(s) needed in advance. The plan should include reprogramming all radios in a system as close to simultaneously as possible to assure minimal disruption to ongoing radio communications operations. Work closely with a professional two-way radio service vendor during the development of any system conversion plan to insure there are no surprises during the actual narrowbanding cutover. 6. Schedule and coordinate with your radio service vendor, as soon as possible, dates and times for the actual system conversion (or cutover), making certain that all radio users have been advised in advance and are aware of the process. Also make sure that all handheld and mobile radios are readily available for reprogramming at pre-scheduled times. 7. The final step in the narrowbanding process is to modify your FCC radio station license to reflect the technical change in system emissions from wideband to narrowband and make any other changes or updates that may be required. Employing the services of a reputable and qualified FCC licensing assistance firm, FCC-certified frequency coordinator, or professional two-way radio communications service company to help with this process is strongly recommended. Dont wait until the last minute to begin the narrowbanding process; you may be risking not only the use of your current radio frequency, but the investment you have made in your radio system equipment as well.
Nick Ruark is the general manager of Quality MobileCommunications (www.qualitymobile.com), a mobile communications dealer in Vancouver, Wash. For more details and discussion on the narrowbanding mandate, visit www.wirelessradio.net. E-mail feedback to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
Section 3: Technology Solutions

Simulcast Networks, Ed OConnor, Joe Blaschka Jr. and John Thompson ............51 Affordable Coverage Options, Joe Ross and Rick Burke ........................................56 A Roadmap for Signal Testing, Carl Peek ...............................................................61 Rural Agencies Adopt Digital Communications, Sandra Wendelken ......................66 The Big Digital Decision, Todd Ellis .........................................................................68
Sponsored by
51 I Section 3: Technology Solutions
Simulcast Networks
By Ed OConnor, Joe Blaschka Jr. and John Thompson As the Jan. 1, 2013 narrowbanding deadline approaches, two fundamental paths being evaluated by public-safety entities around the country are to stay analog and migrate to 12.5 kilohertz or to put in a new digital 12.5-kilohertz Project 25 (P25) system. Because of increased user coverage expectations, multitransmitter systems are being specified and installed. Simulcast is the contraction of the words simultaneous and broadcast and refers to transmitting the exact same modulation on the exact same frequency from multiple geographically distributed and overlapping transmitters at the exact same time. Simulcast is spectrally efficient, can provide excellent coverage, and is operationally simpler than using multiple channels or zones. Finances may play a role in the analog/digital technology selection decision. When narrowbanding an existing analog system, a large percentage of the portables and mobiles purchased during the past decade are already narrowband capable. So staying analog requires a municipality to upgrade only the infrastructure, usually representing a lower initial cost of compliance. Converting to P25 requires making a wholesale change of infrastructure and all field units; but P25 provides digital interoperability and may qualify for partial grant funding. The following recaps decisions that two municipalities made one chose analog and the other digital and then provides a thumbnail of the simulcast technology employed implementing each system. New York Analog Simulcast System For years, rural Broome County, N.Y., wanted to consolidate the dispatch of five of its fire departments to facilitate mutual aid. Volunteers in Broome County serve an 85-square-mile area in the western part of the county. The
Photo courtesy Washington State Department of Transportation
52 I Simulcast Networks
topography is hilly; north-south ridges and valleys intersect in a T with eastwest terrain. Broome County had a primary dispatch site serving four of the departments, but a second site was operated for just one of the fire departments. The channels were both low- and high-band VHF analog, operating on 25-kilohertz channels. The countys microwave system linked the two repeater sites, along with four additional satellite receivers, to dispatch. With the FCCs narrowbanding mandate looming, it was an ideal time to both narrowband the system and simplify operations. Coverage from the primary site had holes. Adding the second site remedied the holes, but two different channels meant an unworkable dispatch situation and missed calls. Using one repeater pair at both sites on the same frequency introduced large areas of overlapping coverage with destructive interference. Sequential paging of multiple departments from two sites took forever and tied up dispatch. An additional concern, which complicated matters, was that with the reduced signal-to-noise-ratio on 12.5-kilohertz analog channels, coverage was potentially going to shrink and create more operational complications. County officials viewed simulcasting the channel to be the only viable solution. As part of their initial investigation, Broome County officials considered upgrading the fire channel to P25, but because of the high potential cost, it wasnt a viable solution. An upgrade to a new P25 system is planned as part of the countys five-year budget outlook, but officials are hoping a grant will fund the majority of the system. Even if much of the initial investment is paid, there is a concern about the annual maintenance fee. Tri County Communications of Binghamton, N.Y., the local Motorola Service Shop (MSS), proposed an analog upgrade to simulcast that addressed all the countys needs. The design included a Raytheon JPS Communications digital signal processor (DSP) voter, which collects audio from six receiver sites and forwards the best signal. This selected receive audio, as well as dispatch audio, passes through a narrowband booster limiter designed by Keriza Systems, which keeps audio levels constant. Spectracom GPS master oscillators provide accurate reference signals to keep transmitter carriers and continuous tone controlled squelch system (CTCSS) synchronized so communications in the overlap area are understandable. Timing and audio equipment by Convex automatically adjusts the audio launch time and keeps the levels the same. Tri County had spare base stations and microwave/multiplexing gear, so the whole system was staged in its shop with all the gear for two repeater sites and the microwave connection. All wiring and polarities were verified before
deploying to the sites. Staging the system allowed technicians to work with the timing in the convenience of the shop. Staging the entire setup saved time, because when the equipment was deployed to the field, little overlap timing adjustment was needed. The five fire chiefs are pleased with the seamless simulcast coverage that their new channel provides and their system is narrowband compliant two years ahead of the 2013 deadline. There have not been any complaints about the system coverage; the two-site dispatch channel reaches the needed volunteers, telling them when to switch to the correct simplex operations channels. Analog Simulcast Parameters To simulcast voice, or tone and voice paging, one must control the potential interference of the two or more sources. The overlap zone, or non-capture area, is where the relative signal strength of the two or the highest signals is within 15 dB for a 12.5-kilohertz channel. In this area, we attempt to trick a receiver into thinking its only receiving one signal. For seamless communications in the overlap, the carrier center frequency must be within 1 hertz from all sites; recovered audio and recovered CTCSS must be within 0.2 dB; and audio must be aligned within 70 microseconds. To transport simulcast audio to the transmitter sites, identical paths should be used. T1 microwave, telco T1, IP microwave or RF linked systems are all acceptable transport methods. RT phone lines make simulcast difficult because they may not be identical and can change frequency response characteristics based on temperature variations. Identical base stations of the same type and vintage should be used. This analog technology is fairly well known, but the P25 implementation requires more discussion. P25 Simulcast in Washington The Benton County, Wash., radio system was an analog 800 MHz Motorola SmartNet system operating with five sites to cover an area of about 1,800 square miles. The county contains the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and is north of the Umatilla Chemical Depot, an Army facility that houses chemical weapons. The county radio system was originally built with Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) funds and served the county well for about 15 years. The 800 MHz system was used for day-to-day public-safety, public-service and utility communications, and it was designed using omnidirectional antennas to provide signals in the populated areas from
two or three sites. Because the system was nearing the end of its useful life, it was updated to a Motorola P25 digital trunked system using the same sites. For trunked systems, there is no choice but to upgrade to a digital system. Essentially, all new trunked systems being manufactured are digital. However, because the P25 modulation format has less simulcast overlap delay tolerance, the new design used highly directional antennas to minimize the radio signal overlap areas. This resulted in lower overall signal levels in much of the populated areas with some apparent reduction in coverage. An agreement between the Department of Energy and local Native American tribes caused the relocation of one of the main high sites, resulting in additional loss of coverage. The overall system coverage is still being evaluated. The conversion from analog to digital, whether trunked or conventional, will likely not be as simple as taking out an analog system and dropping in a digital system, especially if simulcast is involved. Digital isnt bad; its just different. Different design factors need to be considered, as well as the operational setup. Mobile and portable programming can be complicated because of the large number of settings available. Simulcast overlap that is acceptable in analog systems isnt acceptable in P25 systems. With analog, simulcast distortion may result in fuzzy audio or slightly distorted audio, but in digital, simulcast distortion can result in complete loss of audio. There is no graceful degradation, which needs to be considered when planning the overall design. P25 Simulcast Parameters All the parameters important in analog simulcast are still important in digital simulcast, but the names change a little. Carriers at each site must be precisely matched. Symbols the four-level character corresponding to a pair of bits must be aligned. And transmit levels must be exactly the same for all base stations on a particular channel. A characteristic of digital signals is that even with a number of unreadable symbols, the audio produced is just as good as an uncorrupted stream. On the other hand, when a significant number of symbols cant be decoded, there is no audio only silence. Digital provides excellent audio longer, but at the fringe; analog will let you know something is happening, whereas digital is just silent. Digital systems typically use an IP backbone for connectivity. The packets are time stamped and carry the 9,600-baud payload (12,000 for P25 Phase 2
trunking control channel). Allowable distances between digital sites are smaller than possible in analog simulcast systems. A modulation technique called linear modulation allows for greater distances than simple C4FM, but allowable intersite distances are still less than half the distance between analog sites. P25 Phase 2 uses a Constant Envelope Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (CQPSK) modulation. Analog simulcast systems can be designed and integrated by radio dealers, OEMS and end users. Analog systems can be pieced together over time. P25 simulcast systems are more involved and are installed by an OEM or a dealer who has emulated the OEMs design using exactly the same hardware and software. Looking down the road, P25 systems with capability to migrate to P25 Phase 2 will meet 6.25-kilohertz channel capacity. While public safety has adopted P25 as its digital standard for interoperability, other digital technologies that are appearing in North America include: Digital Mobile Radio (DMR), NXDN, OpenSky and TETRA. Some of these alternate technologies are already capable of a 6.25-kilohertz channel equivalent. About half of these alternate technologies can be simulcast (same frequency from multiple sites), while others are oriented to different frequencies from multiple sites. Deciding whether to stay analog or make the jump to a digital P25 system is a major decision in which many factors should be considered. Economics can play a role, but the existing proven simulcast technology will support either path selected.
Ed OConnor is the president of Simulcast Solutions and has designed simulcast hardware and systems for more than two decades. Email comments to OConnor at ed@simulcastsolutions.com. Joe Blaschka Jr. is principal of Adcomm Engineering and a registered professional engineer (PE) in eight states. He has been working in the communications field for almost 40 years. Email comments to Blaschka at j.blaschka@adcomm911.com. John Thompson is an Electronics Technician Association (ETA)-certified master electronics technician with Tri-County Communications. He has more than 30 years of experience.
Affordable Coverage Options

By Joe Ross and Rick Burke
Narrowbanding Options to Retain Coverage
P25 Migration
The impacts of the FCC narrowSimulcast System banding mandate can be profound Raise Tower Voting Receivers and confusing. Perhaps the most Change Output Power confusing and potentially the most Talk-Back Improvements costly impact is post narrowbanding Fix RF Components radio coverage. While migrating VHF Relative Costs and UHF radio channels to 12.5kilohertz channels by Jan. 1, 2013, isnt optional, a licensee can take many approaches to meet this FCC mandate. Several options will degrade coverage, some will result in similar coverage and others actually improve coverage. Three overriding constraints limit the narrowbanding solution space for any one licensee: money, radio spectrum and time. Migrating to a Project 25 (P25) system will improve coverage at high audio quality levels in most cases. Because of the digital technologys ability to correct bit errors, it can reconstruct the voice data to enable clear voice at lower signal levels. However, a P25 solution generally comes at a substantial cost. For simple VHF systems, the infrastructure cost is fairly small; however, a wholesale subscriber device replacement may be required, and P25-capable handsets are more expensive than their analog cousins. P25 will also future proof the system by enabling the straightforward deployment of 6.25-kilohertz equivalent TDMA. Migrating to P25 may also enhance interoperability within a region. Given these benefits and if the budget exists, moving to P25 may be a wise choice. When funds are scarce, many will be forced to maintain analog systems and subscriber devices. In these scenarios, the greatest coverage degradation in VHF/UHF radio coverage can occur. The TIAs TSB-88 suggests that a 12.5kilohertz analog channel is between 2 and 6 dB less than analog 25-kilohertz channels. The variability depends on the frequency modulation deviation and the voice quality level. For analog, while the noise bandwidth of the channel decreases at 12.5 kilohertz, the reduced frequency deviation inhibits the ability of the receiver to successfully demodulate the voice with the smaller bandwidth.
57 I Affordable Coverage Options
However, a number of enhancements can be implemented to minimize or eliminate the degradation. In systems where terrain already limits coverage, it will continue to be the case. In these situations, a slight degradation in coverage might have negligible impacts on portions of the service area because the signal drop-off is drastic and would similarly impact both the wideband and narrowbanded networks. Depending on the type and architecture of the radio network, an engineer can employ a number of solutions to minimize or eliminate the coverage impact. Ultimately, the solution will depend on the weakest link in the system. In some cases, the talk-out path (from base station to the mobile/portable units) will be weaker, and in others, the talk-in path (from mobile to base station) will be weaker. If, for example, the system is designed with a single transmit and receive site for portable use and without the use of tower-top amplifiers, it will likely be talk-back limited. On the other hand, the system might employ multiple voting receivers to capture and select the best signal from the optimal location. In those cases, the system will likely be talk-out limited. Cost-Effective Coverage Modifying the Transmission System Design. Systems that are talk-back limited will be easier to transition to narrowband operations. If not already employed, an engineer can introduce tower-top amplifiers, voting receivers, modified or new receiver multicouplers and other solutions to resolve the coverage deficiency. In the reverse direction the talk-out path there are likely more challenges to overcome. The talk-out challenge is that FCC rules will restrict radio signal transmissions. For example, increased power levels, raised antenna heights and higher gain antennas could be employed to help improve talk-out coverage. However, these actions will extend a stations interference contour and require FCC approval. Given the degree of VHF and UHF congestion throughout the country underlying the narrowband technology enhancement, its highly possible that there is no or only minimal available margin (or area) to enhance the coverage of an existing coverage-impacted station. In other words, additional base station transmitter output power or increased antenna height to compensate for the lost narrowbanded coverage area could cause the interference contour to extend beyond other licensees service contours. If there is an increase in transmitter power, higher gain antennas or increased antenna height are possible to compensate for the loss of analog channel narrowbanding. This would be the
simplest and cheapest solution to mitigate the coverage degradation. Designing Additional Radio Sites. Another solution for minimizing the impact of the loss of base station talk-out coverage is to introduce more transmission sites. In addition to requiring a greater financial investment, this solution would also require FCC approval and must be capable of being engineered without interfering with other licensees. To address conventional (nontrunked) operational coverage degradation, additional channels could be added at alternative radio sites to provide service where coverage holes exist under the narrowbanded architecture. Although this solution would resolve coverage issues, it doesnt create an ideal radio operational situation, because it forces user interaction and channel switching whenever coverage zones are traversed. Simulcast. Another even more expensive solution would be to simulcast the primary transmit site to resolve coverage gap issues. This, too, would require FCC approval and be engineered to avoid interference with other regional licensees. Even in the event that channel facilities can be licensed, narrowbanded operations will be more susceptible to self interference in the simulcast architecture. An excess of coverage area overlap could render this option unavailable. If simulcast can be engineered and is within budget, the transition between coverage areas would be transparent to the user with this architecture, making it an operationally attractive alternative. Simulcast includes high-end GPS timing and channel synchronization that minimize the delay spread of the transmit sites. This is the most elegant, yet far more expensive coverage enhancement solution. On the other hand, true simulcast systems that time the transmission from multiple sites using GPS signals or other sources can enhance coverage within the limits of conventional analog. By timing the transmissions between sites, the delays can be engineered to allow good quality in overlap areas. But simulcast systems are susceptible to boomer sites radio sites where antenna heights of one or more sites are designed at a significantly higher height above sea level than other sites in the simulcast cluster. In this configuration, the boomer and smaller area coverage sites overlap and cause excessive delays a difference of more than 9 miles would be problematic in the overlap areas. Bidirectional Amplifiers (BDAs). Another radio coverage management alternative would be the use of simple BDAs in strategically located environments. A BDA in VHF and UHF spectrum would require a channelization design to filter out unwanted signals and amplify only the wanted signals. With the channelized filters, the resulting repeater delay would be high, making an
outdoor BDA coverage solution challenging. The application of the outdoor BDA is extremely restrictive and will require a finely tuned service area with minimal overlap. In other words, the BDA cant be considered a silver bullet to resolve narrowband coverage degradation, and it may have limited applications. The BDA could be useful in geographic areas where natural coverage barriers exist between coverage areas, such as a mountain pass, but in these applications, 3 to 6 dB signal loss shouldnt result in significant coverage performance. While a frequency shift repeater could be employed to alleviate VHF/UHF coverage issues, it presents two fundamental problems. First, frequency shift repeaters require an additional licensed frequency, albeit with a smaller coverage contour, and second, the units present an operational complexity, forcing users to change channels in the new coverage area. At the end of the day, BDAs are more useful for in-building applications and are unlikely to be effective to overcome the 3 to 6 dB degradation of narrowbanded channels. Preventative Maintenance. Realistically, many radio systems have degraded over time, and an investigation into radio transmission equipment quality may prove invaluable in mitigating narrowband coverage loss and shouldnt be overlooked. RF infrastructure degrades over time. Exposed to years of weather elements, system aging and other factors naturally impact antenna transmission system performance. Water intrusion in cables and loosened connectors are primary offenders to RF service degradation. In many instances, this degradation can be substantial, accounting for up to 10 dB of excess loss. The narrowbanding process presents an excellent opportunity to test the existing RF systems and ensure they are operating effectively. Its conceivable that general RF system maintenance and failed component replacement could offset the losses from analog narrowbanding. Any reduction in coverage is undesirable; however, a radio user would be hard-pressed to field measure and field verify the audio quality reduction of less than 2 dB in radiated power. For analog 12.5-kilohertz systems, a 3 dB reduction at the edge of the service area results in a reduction from 3.4 to 3 delivered audio quality (DAQ), which should still be perceived as acceptable audio quality. Both levels are defined as speech understandable, while 3.4 rarely requires repetition, and 3 requires occasional repetition. As a result, a system designed for high-quality audio will have some rough edges if the narrowbanding losses can be contained to 3 dB. A loss of 6 dB, however, will be more noticeable at the fringes of the system coverage. Ultimately, only a thorough preventative maintenance and performance
analysis of the VHF/UHF radio system, including performance deficiencies, desired coverage (locations, use scenarios and equipment type), neighboring cochannel licensees, subscriber inventory narrowbanding status (replace vs. reprogram), regional interoperability requirements, the available narrowbanding capital budget, and a host of other factors will dictate the right narrowband coverage mitigation solution for each licensee. The important message for carriers affected by narrowbanding coverage loss is that there are affordable options to consider. A variety of viable technical solutions minimize or even mitigate the coverage degradations that will result through narrowbanding. The options for any VHF/UHF carrier vary from relatively inexpensive options as detailed to replacement or upgrade of radio equipment to digital, simulcast or additional coverage sites. Until a detailed analysis of your equipment inventory is conducted and your radio requirements are clarified, one thing is certain waiting to define a narrowbanding strategy isnt a prudent option. Licensees should begin the process of defining their needs and engaging engineering support to assess the options. Licensees then should select a migration course that will achieve the best results with the least capital investment and impact on critical radio coverage and performance. Waiting could result in the selection of a less-than-ideal option at an excessive cost.
Joe Ross is a senior partner at Televate, a Falls Church, Va.-based consultancy specializing in system engineering and program management for public-safety communications. He has nearly 20 years of leadership in designing and operating LMR and commercial cellular systems and chairs the Public Safety Spectrum Requirements Working Group for the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) technology committee. He is an editorial advisor to MissionCritical Communications. Rick Burke is managing partner at Televate and has more than 30 years of engineering and system operations experience with complex communications networks and applications. He is an expert in public-safety LMR and wireless broadband system engineering and information technology and in implementing large-scale, multijurisdictional interoperable voice and data conventional, digital and IP communications networks. E-mail comments to rburke@ televate.com.
A Roadmap for Signal Testing

By Carl Peek Government mandates such as 800 MHz rebanding, VHF and UHF narrowbanding and federal grants for Project 25 (P25) equipment have made coverage testing a required part of the wireless system engineering cycle. In addition, new legislation and policies that codify indoor coverage are emerging. These regulations are motivated by the need to improve spectral efficiency and assure the safety of first responders. A wireless system may adequately meet the needs of a licensee; however, technology changes and federal or local legislation could require that an existing system be replaced or significantly changed. In these cases, the system designer must: Benchmark the coverage of the existing system; Specify the new system based on existing coverage performance; and Test the new system to meet the coverage specifications. Most system operators are familiar with the signal strength test for analyzing a wireless systems signal quantity across an area of intended coverage. This has long been the standard for new system compliance tests. However, the ultimate test of a signal is not its quantity, but its quality the ability to communicate, which can be measured in SINAD for analog and bit error rate (BER) for digital systems. Drive test packages automate over-the-air measurements while driving or traveling throughout an area of interest. A test system can be set up to combine many types of measurement data with time and location in a measurement database, which can then be analyzed for a variety of purposes.
62 I A Roadmap for Signal Testing
Testing Signal Quality Digital. BER and signal strength measurements combined during drive tests provide wireless engineers with an indication of the quality of the wireless link across a service area tested. Transmitters are usually equipped to create a known bit pattern for tuning and testing performance. These patterns can be transmitted over the RF link and received, decoded and analyzed for accuracy. Some manufacturers P25 radios have the ability to decode a standard pattern and provide a BER. And some manufacturers of digital radio test sets have developed highly sensitive instruments that can decode BER off the air. System engineers must determine whether they want a calibrated instrument conducting this analysis or if they are testing a radios ability to receive and decode the signal around the service area. Both are valid tests. Digital radio test set and subscriber unit solutions are both used for analyzing digital signal quality of wireless systems such as P25 networks. Drive tests of signal strength and BER concurrently are the best way to measure the performance of a digital voice link. Analog. Signal quality for analog signals is measured by SINAD. Engineers with analog voice link interests can use a drive test package to make audio SINAD measurements of a two-tone signal being transmitted over a voice link. An engineers test radio receives the signal, and the test system digitizes the signal across the radio speaker or earpiece. A fast Fourier transform (FFT) is performed on the audio sample to convert the time sample to a frequency spectrum. The power of the desired two tones (signal) is then compared with the power outside the two tones (noise and distortion). Signal strength along with audio SINAD measurements are the best ways to analyze the performance of an analog voice link. Distortion. Signal quality measurements such as SINAD or BER will uncover areas of signal distortion or co-channel interference where signal strength is high but quality is reduced, allowing the designer to take action to counteract the effects of the distortion. Testing System Compliance Compliance testing is one of the major reasons that system engineers are mandating drive tests. Performance specification and methodology are the most important parts of a new system acceptance plan. A testing
methodology including a tile analysis of test results can be used to quantify the coverage of a system. After data collection, the area of interest can be analyzed statistically using analysis based on rectangular tiles. A verifiable specification statement for a communications system using this quantitative form of analysis might read, Tile sizes will be 30-second rectangles. After qualifying 80 percent of the tiles in this geographic area with at least 10 measurement samples, at least 95 percent of the qualified tiles must have 100 percent of their measurements above -95 dBm. This allows for an objective standard when writing contracts for system development and compliance testing of that systems performance. Testing Indoor Coverage In many urban areas, public spaces such as transit stations, arenas, large shopping centers, schools and government buildings have specified levels of wireless coverage or performance. This is becoming more common as national, state and municipal governments are increasingly aware of the need for reliable communications in the face of potential disasters. How are these requirements satisfied? The indoor testing option in some software provides the ability to perform tests where GPS reception is unavailable. The user provides a building plan as a background map and specifies a measurement route on the plan. Measurements are performed while traveling between points on the measurement route. The software then locates the points geographically and uses the recorded measurements to create contour plots. Testing Uplink Uplink testing is important for two reasons. First, there is a difference in portable versus site-transmitted power, which means the transmission from the mobile to the site (the uplink) is a weaker link. Second, the uplink and downlink in a voting receiver network architecture use completely different radio links. For uplink testing, a mobile in a test vehicle transmits to the site; its position and the time of the transmission are recorded in one database. Meanwhile, the test system at the site is measuring signal characteristics, logging measurements and the time of each measurement. After testing is complete, an application can combine these two databases based on
time, and contour plots of measurement value over geography can be created. Synchronous Testing If intermittent measurements are required, an application such as STI Field Test 6 can be employed to synchronize transmission time and measurement time and combine the databases after the measurements are complete. In cases where a transmitter cant be turned on full time, a synchronized measurement is required. This special technique is enabled by a GPS timer application and an external computer-controlled relay. The application synchronizes to GPS time of day and controls measurement start and stop times, transmitter on and off time, as well as the total measurement cycle time. A computer-controlled relay allows a user to energize a mobile transmitter through a relay closure. Hang Time Testing. The computer-controlled relay activates a mobile transmitter, which causes a site transmitter to respond. The measurement is made immediately after the relay deactivates the mobile transmitter and during the hang time of the site transmitter. Synchronized Testing. The software and hardware activate a site transmitter at the same intervals that the mobile test unit is directed to make measurements by the GPS timer driver extension. These technology options allow measurements and the test signals to be synchronized to GPS time of day at different locations. Coverage Prediction Many propagation software packages have the ability to import and display drive test measurements so that an actual versus predicted analysis of signal strength can be performed. The method of using drive test measurements to calibrate a prediction result is especially useful when planning a wireless system expansion. The existing systems actual signal coverage can be measured and compared with the existing systems predicted coverage. If necessary, the prediction can be adjusted to more accurately reflect existing measured coverage. This increases confidence in projected coverage for system changes or expansion. In this way, models of the existing system are made with planning software, calibrated against drive test measurements and used to plan the system expansion. To assure communications critical to the safety of
our first responders, drive test measurements of signal quality, as well as signal strength, are essential steps in system design, construction and validation.
Carl Peek, president of Survey Technologies Inc. (STI), has 18 years of experience with solutions for wireless system coverage testing. Contact him at cpeek@surveytech.com.
Rural Agencies Adopt Digital Communications

By Sandra Wendelken During a period of just more than two months, five counties or cities in Georgia and Kentucky selected NEXEDGE technology from Kenwood Communications for their public-safety communications networks. The agencies have several things in common, including a need to be cost conscious and comply with the FCCs VHF and UHF narrowbanding mandate. Most of the agencies were operating on outdated technology before the upgrades. Officials said they were impressed with the coverage, features and cost of the digital technology compared with other options. Christian County, Ky., operated a group of repeaters that had been in place since the early 1970s. Each department had its own individual repeater, some of which operated at UHF and some at VHF. Interoperability was through our dispatch center, with information being relayed from dispatcher to dispatcher on the various repeaters, said Randy Graham, the countys deputy emergency manager. We needed a better system for interoperability. The county went live last April with a three-site 18-channel NEXEDGE system with more than 700 radios. The system was still in the test phase in early 2009 when ice storms struck Kentucky and Tennessee. The system worked without a flaw during that ice storm. Its a shame we didnt have it fully deployed, Graham said. The county originally planned to deploy an analog MPT 1327 trunked system. The deployment was delayed because of county siting issues. When the deployment got back on track, Kenwood was releasing the NEXEDGE system, Graham said. It was a no-brainer to get the digital technology versus analog. The $1.2 million system included all infrastructure and radios for police, fire and EMS. The system also serves city, county and state officials, including the Kentucky State Police and local Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
67 I Rural Agencies Adopt Digital Communications
and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials. The system serves about 35 agencies. NEXEDGE is based on NXDN, a 6.25-kilohertz FDMA digital air protocol, jointly developed by Icom and Kenwood Communications. Icom markets its NXDN equipment under the Icom Digital Advanced System (IDAS) brand. The NXDN Forum has announced several initiatives to boost interoperability among NXDN vendors. Kenwood Communications John North, general manager, systems group, said that because of NEXEDGEs feature set and product specifications, public safety has always been a target market. With interfaces to legacy analog conventional and trunked systems, NEXEDGE offers the option for public-safety agencies to budget their transition from analog to digital, allowing them to mix the old mobiles and portables with NEXEDGE radios, North said. One of the many and more important benefits of NEXEDGE is Project 25 (P25) features at an affordable price. Some P25 proponents have said introducing another digital technology to public-safety agencies could hinder interoperability. North said the technology is interoperable with P25 using gateways. We have three or four neighboring counties that have applied for and received approval with some Kentucky homeland-security grant money, Graham said. Once they deploy their systems, we can link them together and have a regional system. Grant funding has been another issue surrounding the NXDN-based technology. Federal grant programs imply agencies must deploy P25 equipment to garner funding. North said the recent update to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Safecom guide for federal grant programs can be interpreted as requiring P25 deployment for public safety. But if you read closely, the door is cracked open for an agency with a compelling story to tell, North said. Grant funding is a little more challenging but it has been proven it can be done. Graham said Christian County used E9-1-1 monies and local budget funds for most of the system. Federal grant money through a drug task force helped purchase radios. Economics was the biggest issue; they wanted trunking, they wanted to go digital and they wanted to narrowband in one fell swoop, said Steve Macke, a consultant with Advent who worked on the Christian County project. Since December, Kenwood Communications has announced NEXEDGE customers in Tattnall and McDuffie counties and the city of Canton in Georgia, along with Logan County, Ky.
The Big Digital Decision

By Todd Ellis Current LMR system Slot 2 Slot 1 operators have a major Slot 2 Slot 1 decision to make how to accommodate 6.25 kHz 6.25 kHz subsubthe FCCs rulemaking channel channel that mandates 12.512.5 kHz channel 12.5 kHz channel kilohertz migration. Two FDMA channels within a Two TDMA channels time slotted Many systems still 12.5-kilohertz space within a 12.5-kilohertz channel operate on 25 kilohertzspaced channels and require retuning or replacement to meet the 2013 12.5-kilohertz narrowbanding deadline. Another issue to consider is that since 2011, manufacturers can only request FCC type acceptance for new products meeting 6.25-kilohertz channel bandwidths or an equivalence, such as two signals within a 12.5-kilohertz channel. Current 25-kilohertz system operators should consider whether to modify their existing analog systems to operate at 12.5-kilohertz, hopscotch to digital technologies or migrate from 12.5-kilohertz analog to digital technology. Considering budget cycles typically run one to three years, system deployment decisions need to be made soon. To operate on 6.25-kilohertz channels, transmission techniques might include a digital mode that provides 4,800-baud vocoding or its equivalent using faster baud rates on 12.5- or 25-kilohertz channels. Many mobile applications are now leaning toward IP for mobile data application support and multisite transport. Several different digital voice transmission products are commercially available, and the purpose of this article is to objectively provide a comparison. Essentially there are two major types of digital systems: time division multiple access (TDMA) and frequency division multiple access (FDMA). TDMA-based systems use a wider signal a 12.5 kilohertz-spaced channel but provide for multiple time slots in that same bandwidth. FDMA systems use a pair of narrower channels adjacent 6.25-kilohertz
69 I The Big Digital Decision
channels and provide one voice/data path for each spectrum slice. Each method has its benefits and drawbacks. Project 25 For public safety, the Project 25 (P25) standard is designated for both 12.5and 6.25-kilohertz-spaced channel use. The Phase 1 digital standard describes a 12.5-kilohertz digital transmission system that is FDMA based, while the P25 Phase 2 digital standard not yet completed calls for a 12.5-kilohertz TDMA transmission system for 6.25-kilohertz channel equivalence. Although backward compatibility of features is called for, implementing Phase 2 systems may require a forklift upgrade because of the change in modulation schemes. P25 is a family of interfaces created as an open architecture system, but some infrastructure elements remain proprietary to specific vendors to allow them to recover research and development (R&D) costs. The P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP), which aims to narrow incompatibilities, is under way. Numerous suppliers offer P25 equipment. Subscriber unit equipment is the most competitive, while trunked and simulcast infrastructure equipment have the smallest number of suppliers. While several manufacturers are producing Phase 1 mobile and portable equipment, most are waiting for a final approval of the Phase 2 standard before moving forward with Phase 2 product releases. TETRA TETRA is chiefly a European open standard for public-safety communications developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) that is gaining worldwide acceptance. Similar to P25, TETRA has two releases that outline methodologies, interfaces and features. Both releases are TDMA-based, and Release 2 adds high-speed data capability using wideband spectrum. The standard was developed for public safety but is expanding into other vertical markets, including transportation and utilities. TETRAs first release had inherent TDMA timing issues that prevented some wide-area use where subscriber radios operated more than a certain distance from base stations. Release 2 expands that distance, but in most implementations of the technology, high subscriber densities are needed to substantiate the cost of the infrastructure. A Canadian utility is building a TETRA network, and two U.S. transportation agencies have
conducted trials. About 25 manufacturers supply core TETRA products around the world. Icom IDAS/Kenwood NXDN Besides public-safety applications, commercial radio manufacturers are working to develop business and industry (BI) products. Kenwood and Icom offer products with an FDMA transmission technique that promotes efficient spectrum use. Icom calls its technology IDAS, and Kenwood markets its products under the NEXEDGE brand. In the FDMA format, two 6.25-kilohertz-spaced channels are placed in the same spectrum that a single 12.5-kilohertz channel would occupy. This method meets the 6.25-kilohertz equivalency mandate because two distinct frequencies are multiplexed and channelized in this spectrum space. One cost benefit of using two adjacent channels for FDMA or one 12.5kilohertz TDMA channel is that transmitter combining for two channels is no longer necessary; a single, lower cost duplexer can be used in place of a transmitter. However, duplexers require contiguous bandwidth, typically 25 kilohertz at maximum. Channels located in different channel blocks not contiguous require combiners. The original specification was written primarily for point-to-point, referred to in the standard as direct mode, handheld radio use. Kenwoods and Icoms products work interchangeably in conventional mode. Product developers for both companies have designed a trunked mode infrastructure that uses repeaters and links multiple sites via IP gateways. Kenwoods common air interface (CAI) is trademarked as NXDN, while Icoms trunked system is marketed under the IDAS name. The frame payload for both systems includes provisions for positioning information for AVL, emergency signaling, status messaging and free form messaging. The technology can network up to 16 sites via IP linking, and each site could contain up to 30 channels. DMR Tiers 2 and 3 Other manufacturers, specifically Motorola Solutions and Tait Electronics, are busy with another TDMA-based ETSI standard developed for BI industries, Digital Mobile Radio (DMR). Similar to P25 Phase 2, two time slots are offered over a 12.5-kilohertz channel, providing 6.25-kilohertz equivalence. There are three levels of DMR. Tier 1 was specified to work in
direct mode with no repeaters or other infrastructure. Tier 2 is a conventional configuration that also allows multisite access. Tier 3 is a trunked configuration. The ETSI specification states that feature sets are comparable with those found on MPT 1327 systems; both Tier 2 and 3 offer popular features that include text messaging, data payloads and AVL location information. In Tier 2, multiple sites can be implemented and linked. Motorolas MOTOTRBO system uses four USB ports to allow traffic to flow to up to 16 voice channels. In Tier 3, multiple sites with multiple channels are permitted. For manufacturers such as Tait that already produce analog MPT 1327 systems and plan to move to DMR, Tier 3 adds digital capabilities that include spectrum efficiencies, IP linking without analog-to-digital routers, and IP connectivity to data devices. Unlike P25 Phase 2, there are no provisions for wideband applications. Several vendors supply commercially available DMR equipment, and Tait and Simoco Group plan to release DMR products in the near future. Migration One common feature for both the NXDN and DMR formats is the capability to operate in analog or digital mode to support mode migration. This allows users to deploy digital-capable infrastructure repeater/control stations, yet allows for controllable cutovers to new fleets of digital-capable mobile and portable radios. Taits planned migration methodology for DMR Tier 3 is to permit MPT 1327 system owners to convert their existing analog infrastructure to digital. Only reciters the transmitter and receiver in one plug-in section in the repeater case need to be replaced, and the control server/node software is updated; intersite networking is already set up for IP routing. This concept provides one way to leverage existing infrastructure investments, assuming a migration to digital might be necessary. While the FCC mandated refarming the 150 and 450 MHz bands to 12.5-kilohertz-spaced channels, its optional to leapfrog technologies and go to 6.25 kilohertz and/or its equivalence using a digital mode. For smaller commercial systems using only one or two sites, it may be comparably inexpensive to go directly to a digital technology. For medium- and large-sized commercial systems, it may be more cost effective to move toward a 12.5-kilohertz analog infrastructure with a migration option for digital if deemed necessary.
Todd Ellis, PMP, has more than 20 years of experience in the wireless telecommunications industry. Ellis has conducted consulting, system design, regulatory assistance and project management worldwide. E-mail comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
One Test Set for All Your Narrowbanding Test Needs
Whatever land mobile radio system you rely on, the Aeroflex 3920 has the capability to test it. With multiple radio test systems for P25, MOTOTRBO, TETRA, NXDN, dPMR, and now P25 Phase II TDMA, the Aeroflex 3920 has the POWER and accuracy to technologies. test todays
The Aeroflex 3920 is the first digital and analog radio test set to provide full coverage of all of the major narrowband digital radio standards, for both mission critical and professional radio systems. With the new capability to test P25 Phase II, the Aeroflex 3920 is leading the way in narrowband radio test. Other radio test sets cant measure up to the 3920. Only the 3920 provides accurate, reliable, and complete radio test and alignment. The Aeroflex 3920 is the one test set for all your test needs. FREE DEMO! Call 1-800-8352352 to request a Free Demo and put the 3920 exclusive capabilities to the test! Learn more by going to www.aeroflex.com/narrowband and request a data sheet on the 3920.
www.aeroflex.com www.p25.com
Section 4: User Best Practices and Case Studies

Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding.......................................................75 How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?.......................................................77 Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments, Sandra Wendelken ...........................82 Railroads Weigh Digital Options, Del Williams ........................................................87
Sponsored by
75 I Section 4: User Best Practices and Case Studies
Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding

By Sandra Wendelken Eldon Prax is a manager of the transmission systems group of the BNSF Railway and has 25 years of experience. The railway carries coal, agricultural, consumer and industrial products in 28 western states and British Columbia. Praxs group has responsibility for more than 6,600 route miles of fiber and more than 18,000 miles of microwave radio. The railway currently has analog, digital and IP microwave deployed. All BNSFs backbone systems carry critical applications such as train control and signaling, as well as data and voice needed to support the franchise. Prax oversees the microwave and fiber systems and a staff of 10. To what do you attribute your success? Hard work, desire to learn and genuine concern for the people who I work with. I spent some time in the U.S. Marine Corps where hard work and leadership traits such as loyalty, knowledge, integrity and unselfishness were more than platitudes in a presentation; they were expected, earned and used every day. In the civilian world, those same leadership traits are important and tried and true. People can reach levels of excellence through hard work, but it takes a great leader, coach or mentor to bring out the best in the team as a whole versus individual victories. I firmly believe in a healthy mix of experience and education. I have three degrees and would like to continue my post-graduate work toward a doctorate some day. I dont believe or subscribe to the thought that successful leaders must have advanced degrees, but I believe that ongoing learning and understanding the trends in our industry are imperative to success for the organization. Growing up on a farm is also part of my ethos and work ethic. Failure is not an option takes on a whole new meaning when it is -20 degrees, and you have animals freezing to death. What was your biggest business-related mistake? I was serving as a chief technology officer (CTO) of a venture-funded telecom
76 I Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding
firm that provided engineering services in the United States and Europe. Our firm signed a purchase and sale agreement with a Fortune 50 firm, and we were engaged in due diligence. Operationally, we discontinued business development so our revenue pipeline grew stale. The tech crash happened; we never exercised change of control and consequently went out of business. In hindsight, what would you have done differently? Have a plan B and not be afraid to pull the trigger. What is your favorite part of your job? Tackling big projects and working with people. What is your least favorite part of your job? Tackling big projects and working with people without the proper training, tools and attitude. What policy do you see most impacting the industry during the next five years? The whole evolution wrapped around refarming/rebanding. We have to be prepared to be more flexible and nimble when it comes to frequency re-use and allocation. In the railroad, we have FCC mandates that will take us from 25-kilohertz centers to 6.25 kilohertz. This represents a huge monetary and workforce commitment. As technical subject matter experts, we have to be prepared for the stress this will place on our applications through the migration process, as well as our workforce. What has been the hottest topic in your work during the past six months? The commitment to IP. Without a successful and properly architected IP fabric, all of the new buzz-word technologies will not perform. We are making concerted steps to be transparent to our customers while making the IP transition. For a fleet of 6,600 locomotives and 75,000 devices, thats no small accomplishment. What previous jobs have you held? I have worked for numerous telecommunications companies, including Flextronics Network Systems, Ericsson USA, Sprint PCS, Sigma Communications and American Tower.
How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?

Adams: The narrowbanding mandate has given us a great sales tool to entice an incumbent user to migrate to new technology. The FCCs guidance document DOC-271692A1, which suggests current 25-kilohertz users should consider migrating directly to 6.25-kilohertz technologies rather than stopping at 12.5 kilohertz, are some of the greatest marketing tools that dealers have had in a long time. Beck: As a utility that operates in the 150 MHz band, we find ourselves in a compare and contrast between the systems that we know and operate and the modifications that we will make to meet the deadline. Beyond that, the comparison between the coverage models and field experience continues to be a hot topic. We find ourselves evaluating the entire system and not just narrowing the emission mask of a system. The mandate has provided an opportunity. Blaschka: The vast majority of equipment will be upgraded to newer, more capable equipment. There wont be many Mocom 70s and Master IIs around after narrowbanding. This will provide many users with the ability to add enhanced features such as push to talk identification (PTT-ID), as well as providing additional channels for mutual aid. Given the channel spacing on VHF, there wont be a significant increase in available channels that can be used. On UHF, there will be a large number of channels available in many areas. Unfortunately, most of the suburban and rural systems are on VHF. It will be interesting to see if more VHF users migrate to UHF to gain channels.
Scott Adams President Adams Electronics
Ron Beck Network Engineer Central Lincoln (Ore.) Peoples Utility District
Joe Blaschka Consultant Adcomm Engineering
Dowd: Were concerned about the FCC requirements that mandate narrowbanding. Thats really been the driver on this quest for a good communications technology solution. I understand what the FCC was doing 15 18 years ago when trying to devise a way to make spectrum more efficient, but it doesnt
78 I How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?
make sense to spend $300 million to narrowband a system that would give the New York Police Department (NYPD) what it has now. We would rather make that investment in broadband instead of two separate systems. Weve done extensive testing during the past three to four years in analog and digital solutions. We looked at TDMA and CDMA because we didnt want to do it twice, 12.5 and 6.25 kilohertz. There are a lot of folks building narrowband solutions, which is fine because they are already past their useful life. We can operate on our system for another five years. If we can get 700 MHz broadband public-safety spectrum, we will only have to do that buildout once. Its less expensive to do a 700 MHz overlay of the 2.5 GHz New York City Wireless Network (NYCWiN) than to narrowband our UHF system. In addition, how do you migrate a 24/7 system with no downtime? How would you migrate from the existing system to a narrowband system without it affecting your operations dramatically? The logistics of having to narrowband are problematic.
Charles Dowd Deputy Chief Communications Division New York Police Department (NYPD) NYC 9-1-1
Schwartz: New Jersey Transit (NJT) is one of the largest transportation agencies in the country. A major segment of our operation is commuter rail operating under Federal Railroad Act (FRA) rules. All of our commuter locomotives and cab cars are equipped with radios operating in the 160 MHz railroad band under the Association of American Railways (AAR) channel plan. These radios and the associated fixed infrastructure are impacted by the FCC narrowbanding requirements and have to be narrowbanded by 2013. Plans are being developed to address the narrowbanding requirement, along with the correspon- John Johnson Radio System Analyst ding budgets. For railroad and police, the application of digital Tennessee Emergency Management Agency technology is being considered at the same time that narrow(TEMA) banding must take place. The big question is will the right digital technology be available, affordable and able to be implemented within the timeframe necessary to meet the 2013 deadline? The narrowbanding mandate has already driven us to narrowband our bus garages that use 450 MHz radios for on-site communications. It has also driven the hiring of a consultant to assess all of our 160 MHz operations and options
Andrew Schwartz Director Radio Communications and Electronic Security Systems New Jersey Transit
for addressing narrowbanding those systems. Johnson: The narrowbanding mandate has taken a lot of time to educate others across the state, go through our agency equipment inventory and determine what needs to be replaced, along with ordering the equipment. Currently, we are working on our migration plan to narrowband, which will most likely be a VHF Project 25 (P25) system. Haraseth: The largest impact of narrowbanding for the publicsafety sector is clearly operational. The vast majority of equipment in use is now capable of narrowband operation. The trick for public-safety agencies is a coordinated move to narrowband operation that will not impede the interdiscipline/agency interoperability and mutual use of resources developed during the past 10 15 years. Merely identifying the numerous systems, users and operations impacted by various inter-related licensees is a significant task, let alone developing an organized migration plan to manage the shift. Baroch: By mandating narrowbanding action, the FCC will force a change in structure that will allow improvements in the system. Just as with any mandate of this nature, some will act early and some will leave it to the last minute and force a scramble of last-minute activity. Look at the analog-to-digital TV mandate as an example.
Ron Haraseth Public-Safety Consultant
Steve Baroch Partner The NetMark Group
Fredrick Smith Telecommunications Engineer Chevron
Smith: The FCCs narrowbanding initiative seems to be moving forward smoothly, yet in talking with some of my friends in the public-safety arena in California, where we have budget problems, a few questions may be left to the last minute to be asked. Can I just turn the deviation down on my old radios and continue using them? Why do I need to re-coordinate and re-license my system? Why cant all existing 25-kilohertz licenses be automatically converted to 12.5 kilohertz on January 2013? Poarch: The commissions narrowbanding requirements have been in place for a number of years, and provided for a significant amount of time for
mission-critical entities to incorporate these requirements into their long-term network planning and procurement schedules. The commission adopted a fourth memorandum opinion and order, which clarified that the commission would seek further public input before setting a date for the transition from 12.5 to 6.25 kilohertz. This should provide greater certainty to mission-critical communications users and aid in planning both for the transition in 2013 to 12.5 kilohertz and the eventual transition to 6.25 kilohertz as well. Ultimately, narrowbanding will provide greater spectrum efficiency and increased spectrum availability to licensees facing increased congestion in certain spectrum bands. In essence, it will cut down on interference, while at the same time enabling more users to communicate on the band at one time, thereby creating greater efficiency. Haller: This is a critical, earth-shaking issue. Most licensees are unaware that they must have narrowband systems deployed by 2013. Some who know about it think they can continue operating on a secondary basis. Some have been told they must go digital. Between the lack of information and misinformation, Jan. 1, 2013, could be a disaster for end users and the FCC. The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) has asked the FCC to begin an education campaign to alert licensees of the new requirements and mandatory dates. I hope that will happen soon. In the interim, industry trade associations and others should make an effort to get the word out to all of their members and licensees. 2013 is not that far away.
Derek Poarch Former Chief Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) FCC
Ralph Haller Consultant Fox Ridge Communications
Lyon: For hundreds of utilities, the narrowbanding mandate is the largest current wireless issue. While utilities have followed the relevant FCC dockets for years, its now that telecom departments have to approach senior management to explain that large amounts of money have to be spent to upgrade a radio system that works just fine as it is. This isnt an easy task at a time when regulators are exerting extreme pressure to keep rates down, demand is going up along with fuel prices, and capital funding is extremely tight. UTC is providing services to its members to help them explore all their land-
Jill Lyon Former Vice President and General Council Utilities Telecom Council (UTC)
mobile options as they approach this process. Knight: Its a good problem to have, yet still a problem. We have users of medium-age to older VHF and UHF systems who have already started planning to renew or expand their existing systems, while others are reviewing options for a band change to 700 or 800 MHz. This leaves the option to join existing networks or collectively develop larger regional systems in either band. From a spectrum efficiency standpoint, not to mention interoperability and enhanced wide-area operability, we should encourage participation in regional and statewide systems, promoting fewer systems serving more users. As some licensees leave VHF, we should consider this as an opportunity to more intelligently realign or repack the VHF spectrum. No easy task, I know, but something public safety should not overlook. Miller: The FCCs narrowbanding decision has forced some agencies and entities with communications systems below 512 MHz to get serious about 2013. Racom has bid on, designed, sold and installed a number of systems purchased specifically because of the need to move from 25- to 12.5-kilohertz equivalency. More users are looking at and purchasing technologies that completely bypass 12.5 kilohertz and are attempting to move straight to 6.25 kilohertz, because they view that switch as not far behind this one. While some users have actually planned their narrowbanding migration and are executing that plan, we have found a general lack of awareness and interest with respect to narrowbanding that we find disturbing as 2013 looms large in the long-term budgeting processes of public entities.
Curt Knight Former Executive Dir. Public Safety Communications Commission Arizona Department of Public Safety
Mike Miller President and CEO Racom
Chris Fischer Past President APCO International
Fischer: The FCCs narrowbanding report and order (R&O) is affecting publicsafety communications by requiring agencies with older radios in bands below 512 MHz to plan for replacement by 2013. This is a significant challenge for small- and medium-sized public-safety organizations that often find it difficult to meet their normal operational and capital budget requirements.
Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments

By Sandra Wendelken The VHF and UHF narrowbanding mandate is looming for mission-critical communications licensees. The FCC requires all users in the VHF and UHF bands to convert to narrowband operation 12.5-kilohertz channels by Jan. 1, 2013. Thats about 2.5 years away, a short timeframe for mobile communications buying cycles. According to a 2010 survey of MissionCritical Communications readers, more than 68 percent said they are already compliant with the mandate or will be by Jan. 1, 2013. Nearly 18 percent said theyre not sure if theyll meet the deadline, and 7.4 percent said they wont be compliant by the deadline. Mission-critical licensees arent required to move to digital technology under the mandate. Although many licensees are finding that upgrading their networks with analog technology is adequate for their needs, others make the case for reviewing the latest digital options before making an upgrade decision. In addition to narrowbanding, licensees note several main catalysts for moving to digital systems. First, most new digital technologies on the market are cost effective, even for small networks. In addition, these technologies offer advanced features that users dont get with analog systems. And for frequency-scarce geographic areas, the digital technologies allow users to do more with the spectrum they already have. Many users are taking advantage of the mandate to bring new features and coverage to their legacy systems. In fact, the survey found that 42.5 percent of users are deploying digital networks, and another nearly 10 percent are deploying hybrid networks when they upgrade their systems to meet the narrowbanding mandate. Advanced Features Northern Neck Electric Cooperative (NNEC) in Warsaw, Va., serves the
83 I Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments
Virginia counties of King George, Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond, Stafford and Westmoreland. The co-op has more than 18,360 residential and commercial meters and total assets of nearly $72 million. NNEC maintains more than 2,060 miles of overhead and underground lines that distribute electricity from 19 substations to members homes and businesses. In May 2009, the utility deployed a one-channel conventional IDAS system from Icom America. IDAS is a digital 6.25-kilohertz FDMA-based technology based on the NXDN platform jointly developed by Icom and Kenwood Communications. The company has 45 mobile radios deployed in fleet trucks, allowing NNEC to track truck locations. We had to do something for the FCCs narrowbanding requirements, so I wanted a plan that would give us a lot of bang for the buck, says Jim Moss, NNEC vice president of operations. Our new system allows us to transmit AVL over the radio system with a simple GPS receiver in all of our pick-ups and service buckets. We can see our trucks locations on our map viewer program. Anyone in our facility has access to the maps, and drivers can see the maps if they have the map viewer enabled in the vehicle. The biggest challenge with the new AVL technology was convincing field workers that the company isnt monitoring them. Its a tool for us to be more efficient in our operations, and its not used for being the eye in the sky, Moss says. The system also comprises 30 IDAS portable radios and a base repeater with 150-watt amplifier, duplexer and power supply. There is one channel for normal repeater operation and a second talk-around channel for truck-totruck communications. We have limited radio traffic here, so we didnt need a trunked system. We needed a simple system that works, and AVL was a real bonus, Moss says. Another bonus for NNEC was the extra security of digital technologies. In NNECs service area, personal scanners are prevalent. There are a lot of ears out there, Moss says. If you have all these scanners, people can take things that are said the wrong way. With the digitally encrypted network, the scanner issue went away. Another advantage of digital technology is the ability for a phased migration to the new network. NNECs base system was installed first, operating at 25 kilohertz in analog mode while the new mobile units were installed. The mobiles were programmed to operate in analog and digital mode. Once installed, the co-op switched the mobile units to the new digital channel. At this
point, the base repeater automatically began operating in the digital mode at 6.25 kilohertz, and personnel began using the portable radios. Border Complications Spectrum availability was a key driver for the digital network deployed by Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington, Vt. The facility includes three campuses; a main campus and university health center that are located within a mile of each other and a third facility about 5 miles away. Burlington is only 37 miles from the Canadian border, which means Industry Canada approval is needed for all license changes. Todd Goad, president and general manager of Burlington Communications, sold and installed a new digital system for Fletcher. Goad says a big selling point was the new systems additional capacity within the same channels, so new frequencies werent necessary. Similar to most narrowband systems he deploys, Goad worked through a frequency coordinator to add the narrowband emission designator to Fletcher Allens license. In this case, I added the digital narrowband emission designator for voice and data. I specified 6.25 kilohertz, so I could get the three channels in the same bandwidth that Fletcher used to occupy. Industry Canada initially rejected the license change the first time it was submitted, which Goad says is typical. They look at a frequency, and if theres anybody within 100 kilometers of the border, Canada rejects it automatically, he says. Goad developed engineering documentation and explained to Industry Canada in a letter via the frequency coordinator that the change was for an existing frequency previously licensed on wideband with Canadian serial numbers. We werent changing our coverage footprint, and it went right through the second time, Goad says. Sometimes Industry Canada rejects a license a second or third time, and the licensee then has to perform on-air testing. Ive had licenses take up to three years, Goad says. This one took about four months. The fastest is one month, but that doesnt happen very often. After gaining the needed FCC and Industry Canada approvals, Goad installed a two-site NEXEDGE trunked system from Kenwood Communications with four channels at the Fletcher Allen main campus and three channels at the second site. About 150 portables and six mobile radios operate on the network. Talk groups include a facilities group, along with security, patient support, facilities grounds, couriers, valet service and parking garage
talk groups. NEXEDGE is also based on the NXDN platform. Fletcher Allen already had bidirectional amplifiers (BDAs) in buildings, another reason to keep the same frequencies. Reusing spectrum provided a cost savings, and coverage problems on the second campus were fixed by adding a second site and using the current BDA technology. The coverage is excellent, says Charlie Zea, manager of the security department for Fletcher Allen. Thats what we were most concerned about. We previously had some challenges with our second facility site on the old network. Fletcher Allens analog system had four UHF frequencies, so by using 6.25-kilohertz channels, the adjacent channels can be used at Fletcher Allens second facility. We were able to use the same four frequency pairs, but now they can use the 6.25-kilohertz offset channels and stay within the same bandwidth, Goad says. We now have three channels within one frequency a center channel with 6.25-kilohertz channels on each side of it. Goad customized Fletcher Allens system by adding a telephone interconnect feature. I bought a private branch exchange (PBX) switch, tied it to the control stations, similar to base stations on trunked groups. Only a couple of groups needed telephone interconnect, he says. For those groups, if a landline caller wants a security guard, the caller gets a prompt to push one for security, and the system patches the caller through to security. Short-Term ROI Cost savings has been the best byproduct of Holmes County, Ohios upgrade to digital technology to meet the narrowbanding mandate. The previous system relied on five towers to cover the county, but a new conventional MOTOTRBO network from Motorola will require just two sites, reducing the ongoing costs for rent, repeaters and site maintenance. MOTOTRBO technology is based on the Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). DMR performs with two TDMA channels in a 12.5-kilohertz channel width. The county had a legacy VHF network, and the new system fulfills its narrowband requirements and adds data options. The countys 30 public works vehicles each have MOTOTRBO radios installed, along with NeoTerra Systems AVL software. We can poll the GIS information via the radios, says Erik Parker, geographic information system (GIS)/IT director, for Holmes County. We can adjust the intervals on an individual basis. We can dial them
down to one second if we want to, and in some situations, we might do that. During a snowstorm, for example, the county can post the locations of snowplows on its website so the public can view in near real time where the snowplows are. Some of the benefits are for our internal purposes, but from a public-relations standpoint, citizens will know the trucks are out there and that theyre helping, Parker says. That was important to our engineering department. This summer the county plans to trial an application with wireless sensors that control whether the plow is up or down and how its spreading the brine. That information will be sent through the network to see how much is being spread and at what rate. We can see how much money is being spent in near real time, Parker says. In addition, the county plans to integrate fire and EMS agencies onto the system so dispatchers can see their locations. Each of the countys fire, EMS and police vehicles has a mobile data terminal (MDT). Currently, dispatch sends the information on a fire, for example, through a wireless broadband network to the fire station. When the volunteer fireman gets in the fire engine, the call location information is already in the MDT. But they dont have wireless connectively once they leave the fire station, Parker says. They must hear new information over the radio and manually make the adjustment. In the future, we plan to push the information through the digital network and dump it into the MDT. Parker says the applications are similar to what the county could do with commercial broadband wireless services but without the $35 $50 monthly service fees to a service provider. Some of the things arent cutting edge, but it has to do with how we can do it more cost effectively, he says. The return on investment on one of these radios is a few years if you compare it to having a wireless card with a commercial service. We have volunteer fire and EMS departments, so we have to be more efficient. The countys police department went live on the digital network in April for voice communications, using both time slots for voice because the department has a commercial data service. Lets say we never use the data option, Parker says. We then have two separate channels for voice off of one frequency.
Sandra Wendelken is editor of MissionCritical Communications magazine. E-mail comments to swendelken@RRMediaGroup.com.
Railroads Weigh Digital Options

By Del Williams Clean cab locomotive radios, the radios used for two-way voice communications to and from the locomotive engineer in the cab, have become a hot topic now that the VHF and UHF narrowbanding deadline is approaching. All locomotives at interchange or run-through service must be equipped with narrowband-capable clean cab radios to meet the railroad industrys self-imposed deadline of July 1. After Jan. 1, 2013, no wideband operation is allowed at all, as mandated by the FCC. While railroads of all sizes are affected by this change, shortline, regional and transit railroads are especially hard pressed by the capital outlays because many buy radios only once a decade or so. Railroads must also factor into their decision the longer-term transition to 6.25-kilohertz operation, which the FCC has outlined but hasnt set a deadline for. Going to narrowband operation doesnt significantly increase the number of radio channels available the real motivation behind the transition. Analog operation on narrowband channels causes interference to the frequencies adjacent to the one being used, severely limiting the hoped-for benefit of going narrowband. But going to narrowband digital reduces the adjacent channel issue, making it of great interest to the railroads even without a deadline. In addition to the transition itself, its a requirement that any clean cab radio also support existing wideband operation. Technology Choices Clean cab radios that support both existing wideband and narrowband analog operation as required by the FCC and the railroads themselves are dual mode, while those that also support narrowband digital operation are termed tri-mode. When it comes to new narrowband-compliant clean cab radios, all railroads have the same three choices.
Photo courtesy Ritron
88 I Railroads Weigh Digital Options
Railroads can implement a temporary fix, which involves a third-party addon board. This choice is only suitable for some older-model radios, making the radio narrowband compliant, but not digital capable. This option means a new radio purchase is in the near future. Another option is to go with a clean cab radio shell with a commercialgrade LMR embedded inside. The second choice allows railroads to choose either a dual-mode or tri-mode radio. However, if a railroad purchases a dualmode radio and later wants digital operation, the clean cab radio would have to be completely replaced with a tri-mode radio. The third choice is one that is unique in the industry. A clean cab radio designed specifically for the railroad industry, a dual-mode radio with an upgrade path to digital operation, is available. This option allows a railroad to purchase an economical, high-performance, railroad-specific clean cab radio that can be easily upgraded to tri-mode with the addition of a circuit board and a software upgrade. Ritron, a Carmel, Ind., designer and manufacturer of wireless electronic devices offers a railroad-specific design with tri-mode upgradeability. Rather than replacing or overhauling an embedded dual-mode mobile radio for tri-mode, each Ritron tri-mode capable radio can be upgraded to digital operation via an easily accessible add-on board and a software upgrade through a connection to a host-computing device. As a charter member of the NXDN Forum, a group dedicated to advancing the use of the NXDN radio technology, Ritron is committed to becoming an expert on NXDN digital voice operation. The decision to go with a clean sheet design was an approach that we were uniquely able to make, says Steve Rice, Ritron president. Ritron has expertise in the design of high-performance radio equipment and experience with the unique demands of the railroad environment. For example, we did not use a land mobile two-way radio as the core of the design. Instead, we designed a rugged RF front-end, specifically tuned to the railroad frequencies, which yields exceptional large radio signal overload performance. And we added special features, including an antenna fault indication, because this was specifically requested by the railroads. Because Ritrons in-house engineering team writes the software, future modifications and changes requested by railroads even an individual railroad can be accommodated, Rice says. Ritrons tri-mode capable radio was tested by a Class 1 railroad and passed onsite quality inspections with high marks. The radio was even thrown off the
train several times, and it continued working, company officials say. This durability is important, because smaller regional railroads are working with limited funds and need radios that will continue working for the long haul. Several other companies also manufacture clean cab radios. JEM Communications JEM Radio is based on either the Icom F5061d or Kenwood NX700 NXDN radio as the core radio. JEM radio is designed to function as a one- or two-piece radio. Roger Vergo, president of JEM Communications, said Class 1, regional and short-line radios all use the product, which performs in 12-, 12.5- or 6.25-kilohertz channels in the railroad industrys designated 160 MHz spectrum. GE Transportations 12R Series II radio provides onboard voice and data communications for freight and transit rail applications. The radio is narrowband compliant and facilitates dispatch-to-train communications. Wabtec Global Services, an authorized Kenwood dealer that provides wireless and other services to the railroad industry, will remanufacture the wideband Locomotive Cab Radio (LCR) into a narrowband-compliant cab radio. BB Railroad When the Buckingham Branch (BB) Railroad, a family-owned short line in central Virginia, aimed to comply with the transition to narrowband and beyond, none of its locomotive radios could be retrofitted. Gordon Ragland, information technology manager of the BB Railroad, chose not to adapt standard mobile radios for the train environment because he felt that would lead to endless workarounds. Ragland considered hardware-based tri-mode radios, but had concerns over their high price and whether theyd be able to smoothly adapt to changes in the NXDN protocol between the time of purchase and the time that the evolving digital 6.25-kilohertz technology takes effect. If we bought high-priced, hardware-based tri-mode radios, they may not even survive until the digital 6.25-kilohertz changeover occurs, Ragland says. There are just too many variables to commit a lot of dollars to, so we decided we wouldnt pay more for a hardware-based tri-mode radio than we would for a dual-mode one. After researching the possibilities, Ragland turned to tri-mode-capable clean cab radios by Ritron for the BBs 14 locomotives. Theyre built as a complete RF platform for the locomotive environment, not as a shell with a mobile radio inside of it, Ragland says.
With the tri-mode capable radios, our locomotives get crystal-clear 25-kilohertz and 12.5-kilohertz communications right now, and with a slight change, well be ready for digital 6.25-kilohertz when thats finalized, Ragland says. Compared to hardware-based tri-mode radios, were saving thousands per radio. We wont have to replace or overhaul our radios again because we have the flexibility to meet the latest NXDN standard as its developed.
Del Williams is a technical writer based in Torrance, Calif. E-mail comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
Combine your strengths.

Telewave transmitter combiners save valuable tower space and eliminate interference with proven technology. As many as 14 transmitters can share the same antenna system, and dual-band congurations such as 700 / 800 MHz can be provided. Hybrid combining techniques allow very close channel spacing, even adjacent channels if required. Telewave combiners are custom-built on any frequency between 30 MHz and 960 MHz, and are compatible with any narrow or wideband, analog or digital air interface including P25 Phase I and II. Duplexers, receiver multicouplers, preselectors, and power monitors can all share the same rack. Contact Telewave today for more information about our full line of wireless infrastructure products, designed and manufactured in the USA.
San Jose, CA 1-800-331-3396 www.telewave.com
Section 5: Funding
Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project, Rick Burke ..........................................93 Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements, Vince Siragusa .............98
Sponsored by
93 I Section 5: Funding
Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project

By Rick Burke There is increasing urgency for operators of VHF and UHF radio sites and networks to implement and complete a radio narrowbanding program by Jan. 1, 2013. The FCC mandate requires licensees in the VHF/UHF spectral band to move from 25-kilohertz channels to 12.5-kilohertz channels. The scope of individual narrowbanding projects will vary based on the radio infrastructure assets in each network; however, each narrowbanding program requires a detailed program budget and the necessary funding to drive it to completion funding that may not readily exist for many licensees. In an ideal environment, funding would be provided in conjunction with the mandate to narrowband. However, in our unstable economic environment, the prospect for federal and state grant narrowband funding is limited. Therefore, creative strategies to secure alternative sources of funding must be explored. Nongrant funding options are not guaranteed and will likely require executive management support and perhaps the adoption of new legislation. With critical emergency communications systems and FCC licenses that support the communications networks at risk, urgent attention and a creative funding plan are required. Beyond a grant or direct government capital budget appropriation, the alternative funding options can be grouped into four categories: 9-1-1 emergency service fees, surcharge fees, direct tax and government bonds. These alternative funding streams typically require local and/or state legislative support and approval. Therefore, a well-constructed plan to present and sell the narrowband program and budget to executive oversight committees and legislatures is fundamental. Radio managers must secure support from police and fire chiefs who present the case for narrowbanding to the local and state executives and legislature to solicit their support. If these conversations and presentations have not yet started, there is still time to de-
94 I Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project
velop the narrowband implementation strategy and budget, but planning needs to begin immediately. 9-1-1 emergency service fees. The 9-1-1 emergency service fee is an important source of funding supporting a variety of critical public-safety emergency requirements and initiatives. 9-1-1 fees should generally only be used for 9-1-1 services, but the benefit of a one-time use for narrowbanding radio equipment could be warranted in some jurisdictions. The 9-1-1 fees are managed differently by states, counties and jurisdictions, and an understanding of how to use the fees is critical. A temporary allocation of 9-1-1 fees to cover narrowbanding costs is a reasonable means to spend 9-1-1 fees, but gaining access to this funding source is typically fraught with a spirited political struggle. Cellular emergency service fees are not collected in all situations, and legislatures should consider pursuing them where possible. With a migration away from landline phone services resulting in declining 9-1-1 emergency fees, emergency fees should be considered for consumer IP phone and Internet access. Surcharge fees. The surcharge is a fee in addition to a levied tax. Of course, the fee is also a tax masquerading as a surcharge fee. However, surcharges dont need to be permanent, and in the case of narrowbanding, a surcharge could be added to hotel, entertainment, dining, transportation or other purchases where the public is accustomed to such fees. The public typically tolerates the addition of a small percentage to a purchase cost, however, such fees require legislative approval, and in this economy, new fees and taxes are difficult to obtain. The fee could potentially be imposed on visitors, who are also accustomed to local surcharges when traveling. Direct tax. A tax is not an ideal means to gain public support and is considered by politicians as the kiss of death. However, a funding source for narrowbanding is necessary, and in the absence of federal/state grants for which the funds were derived from a tax, a reallocation of taxes or a new tax may be required. Ideally, the tax funding would constitute a reallocation of the government budget from nonemergency spending. The public-safety emergency communications system certainly has higher priority than other lineitem spending, and during the program, a reallocation of funds can finance the narrowband initiative. Government bonds. Government bonds are a standard approach in various states and jurisdictions to fund programs of this magnitude. A full-scale narrowband program could likely lead to a replacement of the existing emer-
gency radio communications network with a digital radio network, such as Project 25 (P25) technology. Depending on the size and number of impacted radio and base station infrastructure assets, the cost of the program could be tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Bonds of this magnitude require legislative support and possibly referendum approval by citizens. The government bond approval timeframe is lengthy and is typically put to vote during the annual November political voting process. A considerable effort to time the approval to coincide with the standard voting schedule must be undertaken to pursue legislative support. Based on the 2013 narrowband in-service mandate, special approvals in association with a waiver to extend narrowband implementation may be required. The waiver process is not trivial and does not guarantee FCC approval, which should further motivate radio managers to develop a plan for executive consideration. Other Considerations There are other narrowband funding and operational options to consider in conjunction with the alternatives above or as standalone pursuits. These options vary from a lease/finance procurement preference to more creative options to consolidate communications onto common networks. Equipment lease/vendor financing. In lieu of an outright purchase of radio infrastructure, equipment vendors and interested third parties will provide a lease-to-own option or provide a low interest purchase option. The purchase/lease agreement spreads the costs over a number of years of network operation. This option must satisfy applicable procurement requirements and obtain executive approval. Leasing and vendor financing solutions have overall higher cost of ownership, but are reasonable options to address near-term capital shortfalls. Shared narrowband cost model. For radio operators that provide access to multiple jurisdictions and other users to their networks, all users could share narrowbanding capital costs under a mutually agreeable cost-sharing economic model. Cost-share models are commonly based on the number of users per agency/jurisdiction or based on population size per jurisdiction. Consolidate regional radio operations. The narrowband program might be an excellent opportunity to develop a large-area governance model and integrate multiple jurisdictions and agencies onto a common radio network. The common radio network can be designed to minimize the total number of
base station facilities as radio sites are designed to provide optimal coverage and are not restricted by jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, network control/switching infrastructure can be limited to primary and remote backup facilities in lieu of network control facilities in every jurisdiction. Nongovernment agencies can be integrated onto the network to support capital construction requirements and ongoing user fees to purchase and maintain the network. In conjunction with the wide-area radio network, a consolidation of public-safety answering point (PSAP) or 9-1-1 call and dispatch operations into a single facility can reduce operational cost while preserving 9-1-1 services over the extended geography. Subscribe to an existing radio network. Multiple radio networks could be available within the boundaries of your jurisdictional coverage area, or could be upgraded, and already operate at narrowband channel bandwidths. County and statewide radio networks could accommodate local jurisdiction or multiple county emergency communications requirements and are open to local jurisdiction subscribers. While radio managers and first responders are partial to operating a private radio network under their ownership, consolidating operations onto a common network that operates under equitable governance, ensuring capacity and quality of performance, can be cost effective and enhance interoperability. Radios may need to be purchased or leased to facilitate access to this network, along with special arrangements required to direct traffic to the local PSAP. But these costs are significantly less than a complete radio network replacement program. The opportunity also exists to consolidate PSAPs over an extended regional geography to reduce individual PSAP operations and costs and share the consolidated PSAP operation across the extended area. In the absence of state and federal grant funding sources to drive the radio network narrowbanding program, system managers and affected publicsafety agency and government executives need to pursue alternative funding and/or operational models to protect radio channel licensing, FCC regulatory requirements, and most importantly, to ensure that mission-critical radio communications are not impacted. The FCCs narrowband deadline is only months away, and while waivers to extend the deadline can be prepared, they will require valid justification. The FCC has indicated that there are no acceptable options to indefinitely delay channel narrowbanding operations. Therefore, operators need to be creative
in their pursuit of alternative funding and radio operations solutions. A comprehensive program plan and narrowband budget must be developed to support the funding objectives, and this aspect of the program cant be further delayed. Once completed, the plan will provide the foundation to pursue an optimal funding source to complete the program.
Rick Burke is managing partner at Televate and has more than 30 years of engineering and system operations experience with complex communications networks and applications. Email comments to rburke@televate.com.
98 I Section 5: Funding
Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements

By Vince Siragusa As the clock continues to tick toward full implementation of the FCCs narrowbanding mandate, many government communications personnel find themselves focusing on identifying next steps in their public-safety communications plans. Narrowbanding calls for each VHF and UHF LMR system using 25-kilohertz wideband channels to comply with a channel refarming, which requires technologies to provide 12.5-kilohertz equivalency. The goal of channel width reduction is to allow government agencies to take advantage of more efficient technology, as well as allow additional channels to exist within the same spectrum. Previous 25-kilohertz channel licensees will not automatically receive two 12.5-kilohertz channels to replace the old configuration. Through an FCC application process, licensees must justify a need for a second channel under a new or modified narrowband license. Exploring and identifying actionable steps now will help mitigate any number of issues that will arise Jan. 1, 2013. Any agency, large or small, not narrowband compliant by 2013 faces the imminent loss of licensed communications capabilities. Each year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) presents a list of eight national priorities in its national preparedness guidelines. These priorities and guidelines are intended to advise various stakeholders in a coordinated effort to meet the nations most urgent needs. Recognizing that interoperable communications has historically been a huge gap for many first responders, strengthen interoperable and operable communications capabilities will likely continue to be a key component of those eight national priorities. For many cash-strapped state and local governments, achieving full communications is hampered less by a lack of technology options than by a lack of funding to support those upgrades. Fortunately, governments at both the state and federal level are aware of the various network and equipment needs facing many of the countrys public-safety departments. For entities that can present
99 I Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements
their needs in conjunction with a well-planned programmatic approach to achieving their goals, grant programs are available to facilitate the narrowbanding compliance process. In this sense, narrowbanding isnt completely an unfunded mandate. For agencies not in a position to fund their entire communications needs from existing resources, grant funding can supplement whats available locally. Below is a short reference of some of the communications-friendly grant programs available from the federal government. State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). Of the DHS programs, the SHSP is likely the broadest in scope and most far-reaching in its impact of a variety of state, local and tribal homeland-security partners. The program supports terrorism preparedness by building, or in many cases enhancing, various capabilities that relate to the prevention and response to terrorism. Fortunately, many capabilities that support terrorism preparedness simultaneously support preparedness for other all hazards such as natural disaster, public safety and emergency management. Communications network infrastructure and enduser devices would be appropriate here. Potential applicants may want to think about developing a regional project instead of a strictly local-level initiative. Contact your state administrative agency (SAA) for additional information and next steps at www.fema.gov/government/grant/saa/index.shtm. Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS). This program provides grants to 124 individually identified jurisdictions to support local emergency management, health and medical systems to develop a coordinated local response capability. Solutions involving continuation of operations in the aftermath of an emergency and interoperable communications are appropriate here. Operation Stonegarden Program (OPSG). This DHS program provides $60 million for security of U.S. borders international maritime borders as well as those bordering Mexico and Canada. OPSG is designed to enhance coordination among federal, state and local law enforcement. Programmatic support would include funding interoperable communications projects for those responsible for the security of U.S. borders. Justice Assistance Grants (JAG). This Department of Justice (DOJ) program provides multiple funding avenues for grant support. Forty percent of the JAG funds available are provided directly to large municipalities based on a Bureau of Statistics formula using variables such as population and part one violence crime statistics. The JAG programs allowance for local spending
100 I Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements
discretion makes this a prime program for local-level communications efforts. The remaining 60 percent of the total JAG money will make its way to each state. States will retain a portion of this money for state-level activities, but are also required to pass through a pre-determined percentage to local applicants. Contact your JAG state administrative agency (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ saa/index.htm) for additional information on this pass-through process and timeline. Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG). The program provides financial assistance directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations. Grant support is offered in an effort to enhance various capabilities with respect to fire-related hazards. The AFG supports three individual application categories with areas of giving ranging from turnout gear and vehicles to regional communications initiatives. In addition to providing funding for individual communications equipment, the program will also support communications network needs such as trunked radio systems, wireless technologies and other creative communications projects that support interoperability. Additional information is available at www.firegrantsupport.com. In recent years, governmental grant makers have increased their efforts and financial assistance for various communications projects. In turn, that focus has gone a long way in opening some new funding opportunities for interoperability that meet FCC compliance requirements. As homeland-security and publicsafety efforts continue to evolve, this trend will undoubtedly continue into fiscalyear (FY) 2012 and beyond. While agencies like the FCC and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are providing the architectural plans for communications advancement, government organizations may want to explore these and other grant programs for assistance with actual network buildouts.
Vincent Siragusa is a grants development consultant for the Rochester, N.Y.-based Grants Office. Founded in 2000, Grants Office provides innovative grants development services that enable corporations, municipalities and nonprofit organizations to maximize their grant initiatives. Siragusa consults on grant submissions for a variety of municipalities and publicsafety organizations across the country and regularly makes grant-related presentations with a focus on public safety and homeland security. Additional information is available at www.grantsoffice.com. Contact Siragusa at vsiragusa@grantsoffice.com.
s s e l m Narrowband a e S Radio Coverage

AUDIO
Manual audio delay allows simulcast phasing adjustments in 1.0 microsecond steps. Delay can be installed at transmit sites and remotely controlled by dtmf tones or centralized at the main site. It can be ordered with line equalization if all link types are not the same. GPS Aligned delay is required for telco T1, loop microwave, IP, or SONET interconnect and automatically compensates for any changes in path "length".
FREQUENCY
Carrier frequency must be ultra-accurate, so simulcast transmitters are typically locked to GPS Master Oscillators with 10 MHz (or 5 MHz) outputs, which keeps transmitter frequency within 0.1 Hz of other sites. CTCSS (= PL = CG) outputs locked to GPS assure synchronization between sites. For improved holdover when GPS lock is lost, a GPS/Rb version is available.
VOTING
Analog audio from multiple receive sites is brought to a voter comparator. The signals are continuously compared, and the best quality signal is sent to the dispatcher and repeated out over the air. Voter supports 2175 Hz / 1950 Hz / or E&M unsquelch indication. A voter monitoring system can be connected if the comparator is located at a remote transmit site.
Manual Delay Automatic Delay Audio Distribution
GPS Master Oscillators
Voter Comparator Voter Monitor
On-line Case Studies and Application Notes

simulcastsolutions.com 585.223.4927 tel
In Phase & On Frequency
18 Port Meadow Trail Fairport, NY 14450
Section 6: Industry Research

Reader Survey: 80% Plan to Meet Narrowbanding Deadline................................103 Do Most Narrowbanding Projects Include Digital? ................................................105 NPSTC: Most Licensees Need Additional Equipment...........................................106 APCO Tracks Narrowband Licenses by State .......................................................107 Public Safety Ahead of Business/Industrial Licensees..........................................108
Sponsored by
103 I Section 6: Industry Research
Reader Survey: 80% Plan to Meet Narrowbanding Deadline

Following are the Will You Meet the results of a survey 2013 Narrowbanding Deadline? of MissionCritical Communications Yes, our network is readers during Yes, were compliant upgrading 33.7% November 2011. The and will meet the deadline We dont operate a results reflect a 95 47.3% VHF or UHF network 3.6% percent confidence No, we havent started level with a plus or 3.2% minus 5 percent No, we have started upgrading but we probably margin of error. wont make the deadline Maybe, we have started upgrading but are 2.9% The survey results unsure if well finish by the deadline 9.3% show that 80 percent of respondents have finished If You Havent Finished Narrowbanding, their narrowHave You Filed a Waiver Request? banding projYes, we requested a new deadline of more 4.6% ects or plan to than a year past the original deadline Yes, we requested a new deadline of less by the dead1.9% than a year past the original deadline line. Another No, but we plan to 27.8% 9 percent 45.4% No, and we dont plan to have started We dont operate a VHF or UHF network 20.4% upgrading but arent sure if 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of Respondents theyll hit the deadline. About 6 percent either havent started narrowbanding or dont plan to make the deadline. Money is the biggest reason cited for those who havent started narrowbanding. Others are moving to different frequency bands or said they have higher priorities. Interestingly, of those who havent finished narrowbanding, 45 percent dont plan to file waiver requests. FCC officials have suggested filing waiver
Snapshot Survey Snapshot Survey
104 I Survey: 80% Plan to Meet Narrowbanding Deadline
requests immediately to have them considered in time for the Jan. 1, 2013, deadline. The move to digital technology vs. analog technology when narrowbanding was about the same among respondents. Nearly half of readers said they are concerned with either short- or long-term interference between narrowbanded and non-narrowbanded systems.
Snapshot Survey
If You Havent Started a Narrowbanding Upgrade, Why?

We dont have the money We are moving to a different frequency band We dont think the FCC will monitor systems that arent compliant We have other higher priorities
41.1% 16.4% 1.4% 16.4% 24.7%

0 10 20 30 40 50
We dont operate a VHF or UHF network
Percentage of Respondents
Does Your Narrowband Network Include Digital Technology?

Snapshot Survey
Will Interference between Narrowband and Non-Narrowband Systems Be a Problem?

Snapshot Survey
Its a hybrid network 8.9%
We dont operate a VHF or UHF network 5.1%
Yes, in the long term 14.6%
Yes 42.1% No 43.9%
Not sure 24.4% Yes, in the short term 33.9%
No 27.1%
Do Most Narrowbanding Projects Include Digital?

More than 40 percent of Is Your Narrowband Network Digital? MissionCritical Communications Private-Safety Users readers will deploy digital Yes 45% 27% technology during their VHF and Snapshot Survey UHF narrowbanding projects. No 29.5% Its a hybrid network Private-safety users, including 14% utilities, transportation agencies and business/industry licensees, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of Respondents have a slightly higher digital technology deployment percentIs Your Narrowband Network Digital? age (45 percent) compared with Public-Safety Users public-safety users surveyed Yes 41% 27% (41 percent). Snapshot Survey No About 10 percent of public39% Its a hybrid network safety readers said they operate 10% hybrid networks that include both 0 10 20 30 40 50 analog and digital technology, Percentage of Respondents while nearly 14 percent of private-safety readers have hybrid systems. Several mobile communications digital options are available to licensees looking to upgrade their networks to meet the FCCs narrowbanding deadline of Jan. 1, 2013. In addition to Project 25 (P25) used mainly by public-safety users, mission-critical communications licensees are also deploying the Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) standard, NXDN systems and other digital technologies. In addition, the FCC recently granted partial approval of a waiver request that will allow products conforming to the TETRA digital standard to be available for U.S. business, industrial and transport sectors in the 450 470 MHz band. About 71 percent of respondents are already compliant with the mandate or in the process of upgrading their networks to meet the deadline.
NPSTC: Most Licensees Need Additional Equipment

Preliminary results from a 2011 survey conducted by the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) found that many jurisdictions are narrowband capable, but are still operating in wideband mode; few licensees have totally converted to narrowband operation. Repeaters and base stations pose a big problem, even if mobiles and portables are ready. Most respondents need to purchase some additional equipment before the Jan 1, 2013, deadline. NPSTC Chair Ralph Haller presented early results of an 11-question survey covering nine subject areas developed by NPSTC. More than 600 responses had been submitted. Most of the respondents had established timetables for narrowbanding, and cited funding as an obstacle to meet their deadlines. The costs for narrowbanding ranged from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars, according to the preliminary data. Many licensees are looking for grants to pay for narrowbanding, although some have partial funding in place. Volunteer fire departments need donations to meet the mandate. Nearly half of respondents said they plan to file waivers to get more time for narrowbanding, with many undecided. FCC officials have consistently said that waivers would be held to a high standard and not routinely granted for narrowbanding. Narrowbanding is affecting interoperability, with respondents noting that interoperability suffers if not all users are narrowbanded, and communications range could be reduced. The majority of the NPSTC survey respondents said they arent migrating to 700/800 MHz instead of narrowbanding in current VHF and UHF spectrum because of propagation issues with 700/800 MHz, interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions and the high cost to migrate to different frequencies.
APCO Tracks Narrowband Licenses by State

A December 2010 survey by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International showed more than 70,000 licenses have not added narrowband emissions. For example, Connecticut reports 70 percent of licensees have not added narrowband emissions. California shows more than 8,200 licenses and Alabama shows more than 2,200 licenses that arent yet narrowbanded, said Farokh Latif, director of APCOs spectrum management division. Wisconsin and Illinois are two states that have established migration schedules through their state interoperability executive council (SIEC) policies for all input/output (I/O) channels. Latif cited several narrowbanding factors, including a lack of communications among agencies when converting and a lack of feedback indicating that a system has been narrowbanded. He also cited a lack of qualified technicians, coverage and simulcast issues, and funding impacts.
Public Safety Ahead of Business/Industrial Licensees

Motorola Solutions conducted a survey of its customers, said Chuck Jackson, Motorola Solutions vice president of North America government and commercial markets. The Motorola survey found 163,000 licensees and 249,000 call signs that still require narrowbanding. Of that call sign number, about one-third (77,000) who need to narrowband are public-safety licensees, and 70 percent (172,000) are business/industrial licensees. In response to a question asking respondents if they are aware of the mandate, 16 percent said they are unaware of it. Another 15 percent said they are aware of the mandate but dont have plans in place to address it. About 44 percent said they are aware and have plans in place, and 25 percent said they are already compliant with the mandate. More public-safety licensees are aware of the mandate and have met it or have plans to meet it (84 percent) than business/industrial licensees (59 percent), according to the Motorola results to date.
Sponsors
The following sponsors have made it possible for you to download VHF and UHF Narrowbanding: Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline FREE of charge. They provide products and services that can help you achieve your narrowbanding objectives. We encourage you to click on their logos to contact them directly if you are in need of their narrowbanding solutions.
Aeroflex is a leading worldwide provider of highly specialized test and measurement equipment and microelectronic solutions. Our customers have complex, high-performance requirements and are predominantly found in the aerospace, defense, wireless mobile, broadband communications and advanced manufacturing markets. Founded in 1937 and now with 2,950 employees worldwide, Aeroflex has developed substantial intellectual property through decades of collaborative design, manufacturing, R&D and service experience with customers. Tusa Consulting Services is a Public Safety Consultant specializing in Radio Systems. We provide: Land-Mobile Radio Engineering VHF-UHF Refarming Narrowbanding/Rebanding Radio System Design Microwave Radio Needs Assessment Studies Existing-System Suitability Radio Coverage Modeling Conceptual System Design Specification Development Proposal Evaluation Services Administration Assistance Maintenance Planning FCC Narrowbanding Waiver Service
Telewave is an ISO 9001:2008 certified US manufacturer of over 2000 standard and custom radio system products, available in frequency bands between 30 and 3000 MHz. Our customers include wireless system operators, public safety providers, local and state governments, and federal agencies. Telewave systems are fully compatible with narrowbanding and all digital waveforms including P25 Phase I and II. Since 1972, Telewave has focused on the needs of our customers, providing the finest American made radio system products, and the quickest on-time delivery record in the industry. Survey Technologies, Incorporated was founded in 1991 to improve and automate the acquisition, analysis and display of signal measurements across a given terrain. STI provided signal survey services to several major telecom companies in 1992 and 1993, utilizing early models of the STI-9000. These activities provided an ideal test bench, pointing the way to further product improvements leading to the NEW STI Field Test 7 software package and the STI-9400 and STI-9450 mobile signal measurement and coverage analysis systems. Measurement capabilities for both 25 kHz and Narrowband signals include SINAD, Bit-Error-Rate, and signal strength.
Kenwood NEXEDGE supports both analog and digital deployment with advanced features, including fulltrunked IP network operation, expanded coverage and secure digital voice and data communications. NEXEDGE operates in both 6.25 and 12.5 kHz digital channels and 25 and 12.5 kHz analog channels, allowing for migration to narrowband on your schedule.
Simulcast Solutions LLC has provided reliable field-proven GPS Master Oscillators, Audio Delay Subsystems, Audio Booster Limiters and Voting Technologies to narrowband and wideband land mobile radio simulcast systems since the mid-90s. Ed OConnor founded Simulcast Solutions to provide technical guidance and one-stop-shopping to end users, dealer/integrators, and OEMS who want to implement clearer and more cost-effective public safety simulcast radio systems.

VHF and UHF Narrowbanding - Your Complete Guide To Meet The Deadline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VHF and UHF Narrowbanding - Your Complete Guide To Meet The Deadline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VHF and UHF Narrowbanding:

Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Why do leading police departments trust Kenwood?

Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

6 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

7 I Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

8 I Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

9 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

10 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

11 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

12 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

FCC Active in Narrowbanding Education

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

13 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

FCCs Barnett Talks Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

14 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

15 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Photo courtesy Kenwood

16 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

17 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

18 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

19 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

20 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

21 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

22 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Verify Wireless Coverage.

he narrowband transition is expected to result in changes to RF

Section 2: Operations and Procedures

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

25 I Section 2: Operations and Procedures

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Photo courtesy DHS

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

29 I Section 2: Operations and Procedures

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

34 I Section 2: Operations and Procedures