Ben Hill County, Georgia Meetings/Special Called... · Nexedge vs. P25 ... Nexedge vs. Mototrbo ... public safety radio communications, was retained by Ben Hill County, Georgia, to

Ben Hill County, Georgia Conceptual Solutions Report

VHF Radio Consulting Services Conceptual Solutions Report

Ben Hill County, Georgia

March 20, 2014


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3 2.0 Existing Network Configuration ................................................................. 4

Existing VHF Frequencies within Ben Hill County ........................................................................................ 5 Active Agencies ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Agency Subscriber Information ..................................................................................................................... 6 System Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Critical Building List ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Existing Tower Locations ............................................................................................................................. 8 Existing Analog VHF Coverage .................................................................................................................. 14

3.0 Technology Options Available to Ben Hill .................................................... 25 Analog vs. Digital Systems .......................................................................................................................... 25 Proprietary vs. Open Standard Systems ....................................................................................................... 26 TDMA vs. FDMA ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Nexedge vs. P25 ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Nexedge vs. Mototrbo ................................................................................................................................. 28 Options for Covering Large Geographic Areas ............................................................................................ 28 Multisite Networks ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Simulcast Systems....................................................................................................................................... 30 Hybrid Simulcast/Multisite Systems ........................................................................................................... 32 Extended RF Coverage ............................................................................................................................... 32 Bi-Directional Amplifier (BDA) .................................................................................................................. 33 Digital Vehicular Repeater Systems (DVRS) ................................................................................................ 33

4.0 Spectrum Issues for 700/800 MHz and VHF Bands ......................................... 34 VHF Frequencies (For Current Consideration) ............................................................................................ 34 700/800 MHz Frequencies (For Future Consideration) ............................................................................... 36

5.0 Interoperability/Roaming Considerations .................................................... 37 NPSPAC Mutual Aid System ..................................................................................................................... 38 Neighboring County to County Interoperability ........................................................................................... 38 Agency to Agency Interoperability .............................................................................................................. 40

6.0 Conceptual Solutions ............................................................................... 42 Minimum Standards for Coverage ............................................................................................................... 43 SHORT TERM/ IMMEDIATE OPTIONS ................................................................................................ 44 Optional Tower Sites .................................................................................................................................. 46 Potential Fiber Optic Backhaul .................................................................................................................... 56 LOG TERM OPTIONS (3-5 Years) ............................................................................................................ 57 700/800 MHz Licensing Options ................................................................................................................ 57 800 MHz Conceptual Solution Coverage ..................................................................................................... 58 Microwave Backhaul Loop ......................................................................................................................... 59 P25 800MHz Simulcast Trunked Digital Radio System ............................................................................... 61 Conceptual Simulcast System Cost Estimate................................................................................................ 61

7.0 Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................... 64 Short Term ................................................................................................................................................. 64 Long Term ................................................................................................................................................. 65

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 66

2


1.0 Introduction Tusa Consulting Services II, LLC (TCS), a radio consulting firm experienced in the field of public safety radio communications, was retained by Ben Hill County, Georgia, to provide consulting services to help the County determine the best approach to improving radio communications, both in the short term and the long term. The TCS contracted scope of services included an assessment of user agency needs, development of conceptual solutions, and recommendations for near future interoperable radio communications. As is often the case with agencies operating on analog VHF frequencies, the federal mandate to narrowband UHF and VHF bands has left user’s with diminished radio coverage. This loss of coverage can be as much as 30%. Thus, it is not uncommon to find public safety agencies now searching for new ways to improve their older network’s ability to provide coverage and reliability. Additionally, federally sponsored interoperability initiatives and recent grant opportunities have been structured to favor the deployment of standards-based, spectrum efficient digital radio technologies. Thus, conceptual solutions to enhance the County’s radio performance should be geared to support existing and future federal goals for interoperable public safety digital radio networks, while achieving user agency performance expectations. The first significant step taken by TCS in the course of this enhancement project was its completion of user interview sessions with the County’s key public safety user agencies. The purpose of conducted interview sessions was for TCS to gain a general understanding of agency mission roles as well as those operational and functional characteristics desired to support existing field and departmental operations. Interview questions and discussion topics focused on identification of coverage, capacity and reliability shortfalls within the existing infrastructure configuration. In addition, discussions focused on user equipment and vendor support. Finally, we investigated interoperability needs with surrounding jurisdictions, Counties, and the Ben Hill region. Second, our work’s attention turned toward those specific technologies and configuration schemes that could offer potential improvements to current communications, as well as future public safety operations. The subject matter contained in subsequent portions of this Report provides a general overview of technologies currently available, as well as options for the design of a conceptual solution. Additionally, within this Report we have included radio coverage predictions for the various conceptual solution alternative, as well as rough order of magnitude costs estimate for the proposed solution’s implementation. By so doing, Ben Hill can make informed decisions on how to best direct the County’s current communication capabilities into a modern, high-performance network with improved coverage.

3


2.0 Existing Network Configuration During the week of January 20th, 2014, TCS performed an inspection of the sites containing critical infrastructure components. These inspections involved Ben Hill County’s E911 Dispatch Center, Sheriff’s Office, EMS, Road Department, Volunteer Fire Department, five existing tower sites and potential alternate tower site.

The County’s agencies currently operate on disparate analog, conventional VHF frequencies that are designed for both mobile and portable radio operation. These systems support the operational needs of approximately 150 users from multiple agencies, both public safety and non-public safety. In addition, the local hospital uses analog VHF to communicate with incoming ambulance support, and VHF 155.340 HEAR system for transport support, hospital to hospital communications and flight following. This system consists of a multiple towers and shelters, containing base stations and repeaters located throughout the County. Paging for the Volunteer Fire Department is provided countywide by with the use of commercial pagers. Dispatch for all County users is handled by the County E911 Dispatch Center. The Fitzgerald Police Department’s dispatch center also serves as the County backup dispatch center. All of Ben Hill’s agencies, both public safety and non-public safety, regularly experience issues with radio propagation coverage. Particular areas of concern include the extreme eastern and western borders of the County, along Hwy 319 and next to the Ocmulgee River on the northeast border of the County. The lack of sufficient radio coverage in these areas could potentially inhibit daily public safety services and larger scale disaster responses. At the request of radio system users, these areas were included in the coverage requirements of the conceptual design of a new radio system. This will help to ensure that users have mobile and portable in-building coverage in all locations that are regularly served by Ben Hill County’s first responders.

4


Existing VHF Frequencies within Ben Hill County

Ben Hill County

KNAK403 (Sheriff)

151.2950 40W ERP FX1 151.2950 100W ERP FX1 154.6650 100W ERP MO 154.9050 100W ERP MO 154.9350 100W ERP MO 155.6250 100W ERP MO 159.9000 100W ERP MO 159.9000 250W ERP FB2

WQDT511 (Road Department)

153.9050 100W ERP MO 158.8950 200W ERP FB2 158.8950 110W ERP MO

WQPX849 (Road Department)

153.8525 40W ERP MO 153.8525 40W ERP FX1 156.1425 100W ERP FB2 156.1425 40W ERP MO

WNVR403 (EMS)

151.2650 100W ERP MO 152.0075 316W ERP FB 155.2350 195W ERP FB2 155.2350 100W ERP MO 155.2950 100W ERP MO 155.3400 316W ERP FB 155.3400 100W ERP MO

WPZN994 (Volunteer Fire)

153.9500 45W ERP MO 155.7150 100W ERP FB2 155.7150 200W ERP FB

City of Fitzgerald

KDK630

155.100 110W ERP FB2

KNIF823

154.9050 200W ERP FB 154.9050 100W ERP MO 154.9350 100W ERP MO 155.0700 200W ERP FB 155.0700 250W ERP FB2 155.0700 100W ERP MO 155.3700 200W ERP FB 155.6250 100W ERP MO 158.7300 100W ERP MO 453.1375 2W ERP MO 453.9375 2W ERP MO

WPUD787

155.8350 220W ERP FB 155.8350 110W ERP MO

WNPC812

154.4000 200W ERP FB2 154.4000 80W ERP MO 159.0150 80W ERP MO 458.0625 2W ERP MO 458.9625 2W ERP MO 465.5375 2W ERP MO

5


Active Agencies Agency Dispatch Emergency Management (EMA) County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) County Road Department Self Sheriff’s Office County Volunteer Fire County Fitzgerald Fire Department County Fitzgerald Police Department County Agency Subscriber Information

EMA Quantity Make Model Mobiles 1 Kenwood NX-720H 1 Motorola Mototrbo Portables 14 Kenwood TK-2360 EMS Quantity Make Model Mobiles 4 Motorola Mototrbo Portables 7 Motorola HT-750 Road Dept. Quantity Make Model Mobiles 15 Kenwood Tk-760H 2 Kenwood TK-762HG1 6 Motorola M-1225 1 Shure Comm -- 6 GE EM25 Sheriff Quantity Make Model Mobiles 27 Kenwood TK-709H Portables 28 Kenwood TK-2170 Vol. Fire Quantity Make Model Mobiles 6 Motorola M1225 1 Motorola CDM750 1 Motorola MCS2000 Portables 10 Motorola HT750 1 Motorola HT1250 1 Motorola MTR2000 Fitz. FD Quantity Make Model Mobiles -- Kenwood TK-7180 -- Kenwood TK-760 -- Kenwood TK-7160 Portables 17 Kenwood TK-2170 5 Kenwood TK-2312 Fitz. PD Quantity Make Model Mobiles 18 Kenwood NX-720H Portables 26 Kenwood NX-200

6


System Maintenance Ben Hill County performs minimal in-house maintenance. For most radio issues such as preventative maintenance inspections, troubleshooting and programming, Ben Hill County relies upon the following service providers: Kenwood Two-Way Communications, Inc 5569 Bowens Mill Rd Douglas, GA 31533 Motorola Hasty’s Communications 1515 Rebel Road Tifton, GA 31793

Critical Building List The following buildings have been identified by users as difficult to communicate in using the existing portable radios. Agency Address City Zip TYPE Ben Hill Elementary School 328 Lobinger Avenue Fitzgerald 31750 School Ben Hill Middle School 134 JC Hunter Drive Fitzgerald 31750 School Ben Hill Primary School 221 JC Hunter Drive Fitzgerald 31750 School Fitzgerald High School 601 W. Cypress Street Fitzgerald 31750 School Dorminy Medical Center 200 Perry House Road Fitzgerald 31750 Hospital Walmart Supercenter 120 Benjamin H. Hill Dr. W. Fitzgerald 31750 Commercial

Ben Hill County Contour Map

7


Existing Tower Locations Ben Hill County Jail

Lat: 31°41'44.12"N Long: 83°15'28.71"W ASR#: 1202886 Height: 144’ AGL Site Elevation: 355’ ASML Tower Type: Guyed Build Date: 08/2000 TIA-222 Build Revision: F TIA-222 Current Revision: G.2 Owner: Ben Hill County

8


Triangle Pool Tower (Sheriff)

Lat: 31°42'59.08"N Long: 83°10'30.67"W ASR#: 1019769 Height: 312’ AGL Site Elevation: 341’ AMSL Tower Type: Guyed Build Date: 01/1990 TIA-222 Build Revision: D TIA-222 Current Revision: G.2 Owner: Two Way Communication Inc

9


Volunteer Fire Tower

Lat: 31°45'8.52"N Long: 83°14'42.50"W ASR#: N/A Height: 100’ AGL Site Elevation: 364’ AMSL Tower Type: Fire Tower Build Date: N/A TIA-222 Build Revision: N/A TIA-222 Current Revision: N/A Owner: GA Forestry Commission

10


Road Department Tower

Lat: 31°46'28.04"N Long: 83°16'13.90"W ASR#: N/A Height: 199’ AGL Site Elevation: 249’ AMSL Tower Type: Guyed Build Date: Unknown (1970’s?) TIA-222 Build Revision: A-C (?) TIA-222 Current Revision: G.2 Owner: Ben Hill County

11


Hospital Tower (Phoebe Dorminy)

Lat: 31°41'50.76"N Long: 83°15'36.88"W ASR#: 1213497 Height: 30’ AGL Overall Height: 144’ AGL Site Elevation: 358’ AMSL Tower Type: Guyed Build Date: 05/2000 TIA-222 Build Revision: F TIA-222 Current Revision: G.2 Owner: Ben Hill County

12


All Existing Ben Hill County Towers

13


Existing Analog VHF Coverage Triangle Pool Tower (Sheriff’s Office - Analog VHF Kenwood)

Mobile Talk-Out

Mobile Talk-Back

14


Portable Indoor Talk-Out w/ SMA

Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/o SMA

15


Mobile Talk-Back Actual (24 dB Loss Induced)

Portable Talk-Back w/SMA Actual (24 dB Loss Induced)

16


Road Department (Analog VHF Motorola)

Mobile Talk-Out

Mobile Talk-Back

17



18


Hospital Tower (EMS - Analog VHF Motorola)

Mobile Talk-Out

Mobile Talk-Back

19


Portable Indoor Talk-Out w/o SMA


20



Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/o SMA Actual (3 dB Loss Induced)

21


Volunteer Fire Department (Analog VHF Motorola)

Mobile Talk-Out

Mobile Talk-Back

22


Portable Indoor Talk-Out w/o SMA


23


Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/o SMA Actual (9 dB Loss Induced)

24


3.0 Technology Options Available to Ben Hill County In order to fully understand the pros and cons of the various options available to Ben Hill County and its user agencies, it is important to recognize the benefits and limitations presented by the technologies used in these conceptual system designs. Following is a brief overview of these technologies. This overview in no way attempts to touch on all of the aspects of any of these technologies, but instead focuses on the features and limitations of each that directly relate to Ben Hill’s situation. The discussion touches on the differences between analog and digital systems as well as aspects of proprietary systems versus systems based on open standards. In addition, included is an overview of system configuration alternatives available to support wide-area coverage desired by the County, i.e., multisite, simulcast and hybrid systems, as well as Bi-Directional Amplifiers (BDAs) and Digital Vehicle Repeater Systems (DVRS). Analog vs. Digital Systems

Since the late 1930’s, public safety radio communication has used analog Frequency Modulation (FM) almost exclusively as its wireless communications technology. This is the technology currently being used by Ben Hill. Analog FM is inexpensive, robust, and provides good voice quality given reasonable signal levels. In terms of disadvantages, while FM’s strong signal voice quality is good, the quality begins to degrade rather quickly as communication distance increases. As users move farther and farther from the main transmitter site, and signal levels drop, static and other noise factors steadily increase until finally the received signal is rendered unintelligible. In many cases users operating within the outer reaches of coverage are able to communicate only with difficulty. This usually requires message repeats and results in misunderstood message intention. Furthermore, analog systems provide little security from eavesdroppers. Anyone with an inexpensive scanner can easily intercept and monitor the traffic on an analog system. Digital communications systems first arrived on the public safety communications scene in the late 1980’s. These initial systems were characterized by poor range and highly distorted voice audio, however they were highly secure. In the past two and a half decades digital mobile radio technology has advanced to the point that voice clarity in digital systems rivals and often exceeds the best analog audio. Radio coverage of a digital system is equivalent to, or exceeds that of a similar analog system. Furthermore, the static and noise that is typical in analog systems is dramatically reduced.

25


Digital systems provide significantly more voice security than analog systems. Voice encryption on a digital system is easy to implement, provides excellent voice quality, and is virtually impossible to crack. Digital systems represent the future of public safety communications. As an example, the FCC has allocated a new section of spectrum in the 700 MHz band exclusively for public safety use, designed for digital systems only. Analog systems will not be permitted to utilize this new spectrum. Digital voice scramblers are available however, they are expensive, offer poor voice quality and are cumbersome to implement. The County’s current VHF radio equipment uses analog technology, and is not capable of digital operation. Replacement of the basestation/ repeaters and mobile/ portable radios would be required for digital operations. Proprietary vs. Open Standard Systems To provide the needed call capacity for multiple agencies, Ben Hill’s public safety agencies operate on multiple VHF frequencies. Users wishing to make calls use a frequency, or set of frequencies, as directed by their agency. Older trunked systems, as well as some currently available ones, utilize proprietary signaling protocols in their design. Examples of such systems are Motorola Mototrbo (Digital) and Kenwood Nexedge. While these proprietary protocols do significantly increase the system’s functional capabilities, they do so at the expense of intersystem interoperability and competition. In general, users with equipment from different vendors cannot directly communicate on the same system, and interoperability between them depends upon dispatcher relaying, console patches, or inter-system bridges. In terms of competition, if a system owner needs to expand or replace equipment in a proprietary system, the owner’s procurement options are limited to one vendor. Historically, this has resulted in a significant increase in the cost of a system over its lifetime. In addition, all trunking systems developed for the public safety market, were proprietary. An agency that purchased a trunking system from one vendor would be stuck with that vendor for the life of the system. If a neighboring agency purchased a system from a different vendor, direct interoperability between the two was impossible. To address these and other issues, APCO, in concert with representatives of the Federal government and radio equipment manufacturers, have been working for more than a decade to develop a suite of open standards defining nearly all of the technical specifications needed to build systems that can meet the functional requirements of public safety communications yet not limit interoperability or competition. This suite of open standards is known collectively as Project 25. While still not complete, sufficient progress has been made such that P25 compliant systems and user equipment are available today from multiple vendors. If adjacent agencies purchase P25 compliant systems from different vendors, users from both systems will be able to communicate directly with each other and on each others’ system infrastructure. In

26


addition, each agency would be free to purchase from any vendor providing P25 compliant equipment, based on required features and budget. It should be noted that many of the Federal public safety communications grants available in the past few years, and expectedly in the future, either explicitly define P25 systems and equipment as a requirement, or heavily favor applications from agencies defining P25 in their requests. An agency applying for a grant based on proprietary, non-P25 technology will be at a significant disadvantage in the competition for the available funds. As explained by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency Director, Nick Brown, user’s radios must be capable of P25 operation even if the agency does not use P25. Therefore, Ben Hill would benefit from the use of Kenwood Nexedge radios with respect to potential federal grant funding. TDMA vs. FDMA Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) are both multiplexing technologies that determine how the radio uses available channel bandwidth to transfer calls between radios. Both methods are used extensively in Land Mobile Radio for public safety radio systems. TDMA divides the channel into time slots with a user occupying a portion of the channel for a specific block of time. For example, 12.5 kHz of bandwidth provides two time slots per frame per user, allowing two simultaneous calls. FDMA on the other hand divides the channel by frequency. Using the same example as before, the 12.5 kHz of bandwidth is split into two 6.25 kHz calls, also occurring simultaneously. With respect to radio performance, the 6.25 kHz FDMA channel requires a much smaller intermediate frequency (IF) bandwidth and therefore has better sensitivity than TDMA based radios. In a well-designed system, this equates to improved coverage. APCO P25 vs. Kenwood Nexedge APCO Project-25 (P25) is a set of non-proprietary standards, as mentioned above, designed to support interoperability between disparate vendor’s radios. For example, a radio system’s fixed infrastructure equipment (basestations, combiner, etc.), based on the P25 protocol, will allow other vendor’s P25 mobile and portable radios to operate on it as both vendor’s radios are built according to the open P25 standards. In contrast, the Kenwood Nexedge radios are proprietary by design and will only communicate with other Nexedge radios. While the Nexedge technology does have beneficial features and performs very well relative to cost, the non-proprietary nature of the Nexedge modulation prevents the direct interoperability that the P25 standard was designed to address. It must be noted that Kenwood Nexedge radios are capable of being programmed for both proprietary Nexedge communications and non-proprietary P25 communications. It is highly recommended that this feature be a requirement for any Nexedge radios used in Ben Hill County.

27


Nexedge vs. Mototrbo Both, the Kenwood Nexedge and the Motorola Mototrbo technologies are proprietary and, unlike APCO P25 based radios, will not operate with each other or other vendor’s radios directly. The Nexedge radio system does operate in a digital format similar to P25, but lacks the non-proprietary standards designed to allow facilitate interoperable communications between agencies with different vendor equipment. Likewise, Motorola’s Mototrbo radios, which come in both analog and digital models, do not meet P25 compliance. The Nexedge radios offer trunking capabilities and are based on FDMA channel access methods, allowing for ease of licensing and limited interference between users on closely spaced VHF frequencies, as explained above. The Mototrbo radio is based on TDMA technology. Feature Nexedge Mototrbo Mode Digital Analog/ Digital Vocoder AMBE+2 AMBE Channel Spacing 6.25/12.5 kHz 12.5/25 kHz Channel Access FDMA TDMA Encryption AES/DES AES Trunking Yes Yes P25 Capable Yes No Options for Covering Large Geographic Areas Wide area systems fill the need when an agency’s radio coverage requirement exceeds that which is capable of being met by a single site for each agency, as is the case in Ben Hill. Simply adding sites will increase radio coverage, but adding sites alone will not result in a cohesive public safety communications system. Without a means of connecting these additional sites together, the result would be an uncoordinated collection of multiple independent coverage zones where users within the coverage area of one site are isolated from users covered by another. What is needed is the capability for users operating on one site to communicate with the users operating on the others along with seamless switching between zones when traveling in the County. That capability is provided by wide-area technology using 800MHz channels. The industry has developed several approaches to accomplishing this task, three of which are available to Ben Hill for consideration in the future. Those three available options are Multisite Networks, Simulcast Systems, and Hybrid Simulcast/Multisite Networks. For those unfamiliar with wide area voice system technology, the following provides a general overview and describes the pros

28


and cons of each approach. A specific conceptual design using one of these system types, as appropriate to Ben Hill, is presented in a Section 6 of this Report. Multisite Networks

Multisite Systems Design - Each site has its own set of frequencies

In order to allow communication between users operating in different coverage areas, a means must be provided so that calls within the coverage area of one tower site are retransmitted on another tower site or combination of sites. Within a multisite network, each tower site in the system encompasses its own unique set of frequencies. Communication between users operating on different sites is accomplished through an intelligent central “switch” that monitors the site activity of every operational unit in the system and connects users together as needed. A call using a frequency on one site is connected to the appropriate, but different frequency on another. When a call is placed, the switch determines which sites and frequencies are available to be assigned for that call and connects them all together via leased lines or microwave circuits. The key characteristic of this type network is that a completely separate set of frequencies is needed at each site. Because inter-site interference is not an issue, site placement is much less critical for a multisite network, compared to a simulcast system. In addition, a multisite network is extremely robust from the standpoint of reliability. In the event of a failure of one or more of the inter-site links, a simulcast site must operate with reduced capacity, or shut

29


down completely. A multisite network can continue to operate at full capacity in the event of such a failure, although with reduced wide are capability. The technical requirements for the communication links connecting the sites are also less critical than for simulcast systems, which can result in lower system implementation and operating cost.

While a primary strength in one regard, the requirement for separate frequency sets for each site is also a multisite network’s primary weakness. The frequencies available for public safety use are extremely limited. Of limited concern to Ben Hill County specifically, many of the available 800 MHz public safety frequencies in Georgia are already in use. The availability of frequencies can effectively block a multisite system’s capability for expansion, in terms of either coverage or capacity. If additional frequencies cannot be made available, additional sites cannot be added to an existing multisite network to increase its coverage.

Capacity expansion is further constrained by frequency availability as capacity expansion usually requires adding channels to multiple sites in the network. In order to prevent dropped or missed calls, the quantity of channels at each site must be high enough to handle all of the calls that the central switch may route to that site at any instant. The limited number of frequencies available to Ben Hill is a critical system design constraint blocking a simple solution to the coverage and capacity problems that Ben Hill could face in the future.

Another issue to consider is the effect of transitioning from one site to another when traveling throughout the County. Site transitioning has an effect on the apparent coverage performance of a multisite network. In order to ensure that coverage within the required service area is contiguous, the coverage from adjacent sites must overlap each other. As users travel in these overlapping coverage areas, the radio must determine which site provides the strongest signal at that specific location and transition to the stronger site’s operating frequencies. This transition is not instantaneous in a multi-site network. To prevent missed calls due to excessive transitioning between sites, the transition to the stronger site is delayed until the signal difference between the current site and the new site exceeds a specific signal difference threshold. The net result is that a user may not be always operating on the optimum site. From the user’s perspective, system coverage is less than expected.

Simulcast Systems Like multisite, simulcast is a technology that increases coverage beyond that available from a single site by implementing multiple sites throughout the desired coverage area. Simulcast networks differs from a multisite network in that the same frequencies are used throughout the system, at each site. With a simulcast system, the transmitter at each site broadcasts the same information simultaneously on the same RF channel as the other sites, hence the name. The primary advantage of a simulcast system over a multisite network is that simulcast increases coverage without increasing the number of channels necessary to support the system. Also, given the same site configuration, inbound coverage from subscriber units to the base stations is improved over multisite because of the diversity effect of multiple receiver sites monitoring the same inbound frequency, and outbound coverage is improved because

30


there is no site transitioning effect to contend with. From the user’s point of view a simulcast system operates exactly like a single site system. There are no zones or site transitions for the user to contend with.

Simulcast System Design - All four sites share the same set of frequencies

However, as a result of multiple sites transmitting on the same frequency, each site’s transmit frequency, phase, and timing must be precisely controlled to prevent the destructive interference as signals transmitted from multiple sites overlap. This requirement to precisely control the output signals from each site in order to prevent destructive time delay interference (TDI) makes the implementation and long term support of a simulcast system more complex and costly than for a multisite network. This is especially true for VHF frequencies, which were never intended for simulcast usage. Furthermore, this disadvantage also places constraints on a simulcast system’s site placement. With the recent release of linear-simulcast technology (vs. non-linear simulcast), the design of a simulcast is much easier to accomplish with limited TDI issues.

A simulcast radio system also requires highly stable and reliable inter-site connectivity. If inter-site connectivity is lost in a simulcast system, the affected sites will operate as stand-alone sites with severely limited capacity. This requirement for reliability and stability can usually only be met by a dedicated microwave or fiber optic sub-system. Currently leased circuits, even leased fiber, are not recommended for simulcast, and some vendors will not support simulcast systems utilizing them. From the standpoint of reliability, microwave has proven to be far more reliable and robust than leased circuits in the face of severe storms.

31


Hybrid Simulcast/Multisite Systems

Hybrid System Design - A combination of multisite and simulcast systems

The final wide area system configuration is a hybrid design using a combination of multisite and simulcast technologies. This system configuration consists of several simulcast sub-systems, or “cells” connected together in a larger multisite network. From the standpoint of the multisite network, each simulcast cell looks like a single site, but each of these cells has significantly greater coverage than is possible from a single site. This design can provide a system solution when the geographic area is too large to be accommodated by a single simulcast system, and frequency constraints preclude a purely multisite network approach.

Extended RF Coverage

Although likely unnecessary for Ben Hill County, a radio system’s coverage can be extended through the use of devices designed to receive and retransmit the system’s signals, much like a repeater. These options are typically reserved for worse case environments, such as mountainous areas, or for very dense structures, such as hospitals that commonly have radio penetration issues.

32


Bi-Directional Amplifier (BDA)

The Bi-Directional Amplifier (BDA) amplifies and repeats radio signals from a donor antenna located in an area where coverage is available. The amplified signal is then repeated toward an area where there is little or no coverage. Likewise, the signal from a subscriber radio is repeated back to the donor antenna which directs it back to the infrastructure sites. An important difference between BDAs and Digital Vehicular Repeater System (DVRS) is that BDAs do not change the frequency of the signal. This simplifies the operation of the BDA, however it has a major drawback in this design. Because both antennas operate on the same frequencies they must be separated by some type of structure. This is especially true with VHF frequencies outdoors because of extended propagation range. The more separation between the antennas, the better their performance will be. Water towers/water tanks offer the best type of structure for installing outdoor BDAs. Because of the metal used in these structures, these antennas can be separated in such a way as to offer the most gain. Other types of structures that will also work are buildings where antennas are installed on opposite sides. Digital Vehicular Repeater System (DVRS) A cost effective solution to extending RF coverage is accomplished through the use of a Digital Vehicular Repeater System (DVRS). A DVRS provides repeater capability between portable radios (portable radios being the most susceptible to coverage problems) and the RF infrastructure system (tower sites). This dramatically improves coverage by leveraging the large mobile coverage of a radio system and extending it to portable radios which would otherwise have little or no coverage in buildings and remote areas. A DVRS accomplishes this “repeating” function by using two radios tied together with a hardware controlling device. One of the radios would be programmed into the radio system with the appropriate frequencies. The second radio (usually supplied with the repeater) operates outside of the frequency range of the trunked radio system. Because of this, a DVRS would require approval and licensing from the FCC. Unfortunately, these types of systems require substantial coordination and planning to prevent self-interference, again, especially with the VHF band. This is due to poor frequency coordination by spectrum managers and the extended propagation characteristics of VHF, as explained in the following section, Section 4. Anytime there are two DVRS at the same location, a protocol must be established so a portable radio doesn't activate two or more DVRS. At most, it is recommended that the use of DVRS be limited to a small number of command staff vehicles.

33


4.0 Spectrum Issues for 700/800 MHz and VHF Bands VHF Frequencies (For Current Consideration) Users of radio systems operable below 512 MHz were required to make substantial changes to their radio configurations by the January 1, 2013. This FCC ordered reconfiguration is termed “narrowbanding” and was intended to ultimately expand the number of channels available to public safety four-fold. By Year 2013, existing licensees must have converted their current 25 KHz bandwidth radio systems to 12.5 KHz. This objective can be met using analog technologies, albeit with some degradation in coverage that could result in the need for additional antenna systems or tower sites. Sometime beyond 2013 (as yet unannounced) the FCC intends to force a second narrow-banding of channels to 6.25 KHz bandwidths. This final migration to 6.25 KHz bandwidths will cause all FCC Part 90 analog systems, as now operated by Ben Hill County, to become obsolete and will require a conversion to digital technology or a complete overhaul and expansion of the current analog system. The coverage performance drop-off as a result of 6.25 KHz versus 25 KHz bandwidth operations may require twice the number of infrastructure antenna sites to achieve coverage equivalency. So, the conversion to 6.25 KHz operations would involve both equipment and engineering challenges to maintain analog-equivalent grade of service objectives. This FCC Narrowbanding Order has far reaching effects to users of radio systems below 512 MHz. The cost to conform to these changes, particularly those related to 6.25 KHz operations, will be very high. A difficulty we foresee is that many of Georgia’s more rural fire districts rely on volunteer personnel. As volunteers, these individuals often purchase their own radio equipment. Analog VHF radio gear is relatively inexpensive (often for less than $400) and available from many sources. By contrast, digital radio equipment operable in these narrow band channels will be significantly more expensive, perhaps in the order of three times that for a comparable analog radio, which could present a financial hardship for these essential volunteer service providers. Correspondingly, it is reasonable to expect that such conversion costs will become the responsibility of some source other than volunteer individuals. Additional issues and considerations for those agencies using the VHF band:

• It is intrinsically difficult to design a successful radio network using VHF frequencies due to the FCC’s disorganized band plan which does not allow for manageable transmit and receive frequency spacing for repeater operations. This, in turn, makes site designs using full-duplex repeater stations (where the plurality of a site’s transmitters and receivers must operate simultaneously and without causing harmful interference to themselves) complicated.

• The absence of an FCC structured band plan adds inefficiencies to the system’s

transmitter and receiver signal paths as the number of site-active channels increases,

34


leading to potential intermodulation product interference. The channels made available for this system’s design, while adequate if each of the ten channels were located at geographically separate sites are not necessarily the best channels in regards to spacing within an integrated site configuration where all of the channels are located at each site.

• VHF signals do not penetrate buildings well, as compared to performance at other

frequency bands available to Public Safety. In-building coverage enhancement is both expensive and complex and that complexity is, again, the result of the FCC’s band plan for VHF operations.

• It is difficult to develop a portable-based system design that is balanced at VHF

without the use of supplemental receive-only sites. The term balance implies that a given portable user’s radio has a similar effective range of coverage as the basestation’s signal. In the UHF and 700/800 MHz bands, a balanced system design is technically much more attainable and is often accomplished by utilizing high gain receiver pre-amplifiers mounted on the top of the tower (“Tower Top Amplifiers” or “TTA’s”) and adjacent to the receiver antenna.

Note also that the FCC’s UHF and 700/800 MHz bands also have a more uniform band plan (i.e., consistently assigned transmit and receive frequencies). Specifically, UHF and above radio spectrum was purposefully configured for licensing by the FCC to accommodate full-duplex repeater operations whereas the VHF band was not initially configured for that technology. At the time the FCC’s VHF band plan was conceived, the use of full-duplex repeater technology was in its infancy and rarely seen. Unfortunately the FCC did not address this deficiency while undertaking its Narrowbanding Order. Agencies that embrace VHF networks (like that used by the County) shoulder the burden and risk of securing sets of licensable radio channels that are operationally compatible and do not cause interference to themselves.

• VHF frequencies are susceptible to co-channel interference from other distant, FCC licensed radio systems. If an in-system channel is being used in an adjacent area, the use of that channel might be limited by the FCC in regards to transmitter power output and/or useable antenna type.

• VHF frequencies are susceptible to atmospheric conditions. Atmospheric conditions

such as “skip” could result in sporadic co-channel interference. Skip is caused when distant signals that would normally be absorbed into the ionosphere are instead reflected back to Earth many miles from the source and, thus, result in interference from licensed operations that might be hundreds of miles away in differing states.

• VHF sites are susceptible to noise floor interference that negatively impacts receiver

performance. The noise floor is a composite of locally generated radio signal interference and possible electrical noise from electrical systems, transmission lines, generator stations, and so on. High noise floor levels essentially make it difficult for the receivers at a site to hear distant calling stations, especially if that calling station is a low powered 5-watt portable radio.

35


700/800 MHz Frequencies (For Future Consideration) Issues and considerations for those agencies using the 700/800 MHz bands:

• As ordered by the FCC, a major bandwidth reduction is required for radio systems operable on 700 MHz. By Year 2017, the FCC requires all public safety 700MHz radio systems to be converted to 6.25 KHz operations. Currently, 700 MHz public safety radio systems are operable using Project 25 Phase I standards (12.5 KHz channels). The Year 2017 bandwidth rules will require, at a minimum, software changes to existing Phase I infrastructures. The 2017 deadline only applies to agencies operating on 700 MHz before January 1, 2015. Agencies that begin operation on 700 MHz frequencies between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2017 must already be narrowbanded for Phase II compliance.

• Existing 700 MHz portable and mobile radios operable only on Phase I bandwidths

will require replacement in order to operate on 6.25 KHz bandwidth systems. Early users of 700 MHz may have purchased user radio equipment that is not adaptable to Project 25 Phase II bandwidths/ technology. Thus, many agencies now considering the purchase of user radios operable on 700 MHz systems are encouraged to secure written assurance from potential radio vendors that any proposed/ supplied equipment is capable of a software upgrade to support APCO Project 25 Phase II operations.

Further, only three public safety grade radio manufacturers offer Phase II capable infrastructure equipment. Several offer subscriber units that will operate in Phase II, but they do not yet have the software required to operate the available equipment. This limits the option of procuring an entirely 700 MHz radio system at this point in time as the number of vendors capable of competing in an open procurement is restricted.

• There are currently no plans or FCC Orders to change the bandwidth characteristics

of 800 MHz public safety radio operations. However, as recently as November 2009, the FCC announced that they were requesting public comment on a petition for rulemaking, asking the FCC to revise the channel plan for the 800 MHz band for 12.5 KHz bandwidth channels.

36


5.0 Interoperability/Roaming Considerations The State of Georgia is very advanced with respect to interoperable communications and mutual support during emergencies. Emergency communications are supported through multiple levels of communications between systems on several platforms. This excerpt from the Georgia Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Executive Summary explains:

The goals and objectives for this plan include:

1. Complete GIN project. 2. Continue to promote standards-based regional radios systems. 3. Develop statewide interoperability SOPs and tactical plans. 4. Provide framework for development of regional interoperability SOPs and

tactical plans. 5. Promote the programming and use of statewide and national interoperability

frequencies by all agencies. 6. Integrate interoperability training into current curriculum, particularly for

dispatchers. 7. Improve stockpiles of communications equipment and infrastructure

replacement capabilities. 8. Continue to integrate interoperability into the training and exercise programs

throughout the state.

These technologies include swapping radios, gateways, shared channels and proprietary shared systems. Listed below are some of the systems currently deployed around the State: • Georgia Interoperability Network (GIN)

• Mutual Aid Channel Build out (Statewide)

• Emergency Deployable Interoperable Communications System (EDICS)

• Emergency Deployable Wide Area Remote Data System (EDWARDS)

• Mobile Trunked Radio Systems

• Mutual Aid Radio Cache (MARC)

• Mobile Command Post Standardization

• Mobile Command Posts

• Radio Caches The County’s radio manager has taken great care to insure alignment between local, regional and state interoperable communication capabilities. The State of Georgia’s vision for statewide interoperability requires connecting 700/800 MHz wide area trunked radio systems and conventional UHF/VHF systems through statewide networks. Ben Hill should begin efforts to improve regional communications with non-proprietary standards based radios. Multi-county/ multi-region networks are favored by federal funding and could bolster local in-county communications as well.

37


Interoperability with the surrounding counties and agencies could be accomplished either directly or by link radios for each channel that these groups operate on. These radios would be directly interfaced to Ben Hill’s radio system and would appear on radio dispatcher console screens as talk groups/ channels. This could be done by interfacing these dedicated radios directly to a console switch which enables system users to incorporate conventional repeater channels into their dispatch operations without the need for a separate hardware network and channel banks. NPSPAC Mutual Aid System Most public safety agencies in the State of Georgia who operate 800 MHz systems or own subscriber units that operate on a participating Public Safety system have access to the nationwide mutual aid channels generally referred to as the TAC (Tactical Communications) channels. These are 5 distinct channel assignments that are designated for conventional analog communications in support of mutual aid operations and interoperable communications. These channels are generally set aside for 3 main categories:

• Day to Day Interoperability – Generally used during routine Public Safety operations such as accident scene response or other first response activity. Several area

38


jurisdictions may respond to these type calls. TAC channels are generally used so that Public Safety agencies may all use a designated common channel for communications during these routine events.

• Mutual Aid Disaster Response – Planned use of specified channels during joint

response to major disasters that may exceed the resources of one specific agency. These events include possible terrorist activity, airplane crashes, bombings, large forest fires and other major events and acts of nature when the situation overwhelms local responses and outside support is requested.

• Task Force Interoperability involving state, local and/or federal agencies coming

together for a period of time in response to major events such as sporting events, political rallies, or for investigations related to prolonged criminal activity.

Ben Hill would benefit from improved interoperability by changing from analog conventional and digital proprietary technologies to a P25 based radio system.

Neighboring County to County Interoperability According to the Georgia Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP), Georgia’s Region 8 consists of twenty-one counties: Bleckley, Pulaski, Dodge, Wilcox, Telfair, Wheeler, Montgomery, Toombs, Tattnall, Appling, Jeff Davis, Ben Hill, Irwin, Coffee, Bacon, Ware, Atkinson, Berrien, Lanier, Clinch and Echols. Ben Hill County and most of the Counties surrounding Ben Hill have some degree of interoperable capabilities through mutual aid channels to support radio communications during regional disaster responses. At this time all of the counties surrounding Ben Hill County operate on analog UHF/VHF technology.

GEMA Regions

39


Agency to Agency Interoperability The following matrix outlines interoperability between agencies with Ben Hill County and with agencies in the immediately surrounding counties outside of Ben Hill.

Ben Hill Sheriff

Ben Hill EMA

Ben Hill EMS

Ben Hill Road Dept.

Ben Hill Vol. Fire

Fitz Police

Fitz Fire

Fitz PW GSP

Georgia Forestry GEMA

Ocilla County

Irwin County

Ben Hill Sheriff X X X X X X X

Ben Hill EMA X X X X X X X X X X

Ben Hill EMS X X X X

X

X

Ben Hill Road Dept. X X X X

Ben Hill Vol. Fire X X X X

X

X

X

Fitzgerald Police X X

X

X

X

Fitzgerald Fire X X X

X X X

Fitzgerald Public Works

X

X

Georgia State Patrol X X

X

Georgia Forestry

X

X

GEMA

X

City of Ocilla, GA

X

Irwin County EMS X X

40


Local Interoperability Coffee County LE VHF Fire/EMS VHF EM VHF City of Douglas LE VHF Irwin County LE VHF Fire VHF EM VHF Telfair County LE VHF Fire VHF EMS UHF Turner County LE VHF Fire/EMS VHF EM VHF/UHF Wilcox County LE VHF Fire/EMS VHF TPRD-1554 VHF Duplexer City of Ocilla LE VHF Regional Interoperability GEMA Region 8 Most Agencies VHF State Interoperability Georgia State Patrol LE VHF/ UHF/ 700 Georgia Forestry Commission Fire VHF Southeast Georgia Regional Radio Network (SEGARRN) SmartZone/ Smart-X/ Astro P25 700/ 800

41


6.0 Conceptual Solutions Prior to entering the conceptual design phase, TCS performed a thorough evaluation of the County’s current radio system capabilities. This included evaluation of the system’s coverage and interviews with users to determine operational suitability to support Ben Hill County’s requirements, both immediately and in the future. The results of that work are presented to the County in detail within this report. However, to summarize, two key deficiencies exist today, the age of the existing coverage and efficient spectrum use. Any potential solution must address deficiencies immediately and in the long term. Another major concern is the current viability of the Road Department Tower. In consideration of an immediate solution that can best meet the needs of all agencies and potential users within Ben Hill, an analysis of analog and digital VHF was necessary. In addition, as directed by system managers, the focus of this conceptual solution is the improvement of coverage through the use of in-vehicle repeaters and/or Kenwood’s Nexedge technology. In addition, a well-designed system capable of countywide coverage and in-building penetration may require receive only sites to meet the user’s needs. In the near future, the County should begin planning and acquiring funds to support a regionally based 700/800 MHz radio system. These bands are much more conducive to simulcast technologies and greatly improve countywide and in-building coverage. With the 700/800 MHz bands, unlike the VHF band, the allocation of spectrum has been categorized by the FCC and is further coordinated by each state, on behalf of the FCC. With 800 MHz, the channels were assigned by categories of use (General, Public Safety, etc.) with public safety channels being allotted in the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) group. Depending on the State, Counties and larger Cities are typically assigned a number of channels determined by population and potential need. In some cases, channels can be re-allocated to other agencies if they have not been used by the County to which they have been assigned. The categorization of 800 MHz frequencies has been altered and convoluted through the rebanding of channels for Sprint/Nextel, but is still far more advanced compared to UHF and VHF frequency coordination. Like 800 MHz, channel allocation for the 700 MHz band has already been established. In Georgia, the Region 10 Planning Committee has apportioned channel use by County and level of government (county and state). In order to support simulcast capabilities, the system would need between 5-8 channels to account for all County agencies and future system growth. More frequencies would be required for a regional system, but each City/County has an allotment of channels available for use in a regional system. The number of channels was determined according to current system design and capacity, and the conceptual system design with 3 tower sites. The final number of required frequencies will depend on the final design of the chosen vendor.

42


Minimum Standards for Coverage While there are no universally accepted minimum standards for either coverage or capacity for a Public Safety radio system, the objectives defined by Tusa Consulting for coverage and capacity follow those generally employed in the industry. Specifically, any potential solution should provide no less than 95% countywide portable indoor coverage with a Delivered Audio Quality (DAQ) level of at least 3.4, and no less than 95% coverage in 10dB buildings in critical coverage areas, also at DAQ level of 3.4. The table below provides a definition of DAQ levels. Critical coverage areas are areas other than wetlands, forests, and agricultural areas.

DAQ DESCRIPTION 5 Reception is very clear and message is perfectly readable.

No background noise is present and every word is understood. 4 Reception is clear, but with slight background noise.

Message is readable and every word is understood. 3.4 Reception is clear, but with slight background noise.

Message is readable and understood with few/occasional missing syllables. 3 Background noise is evident. Message is readable and understood even with

missing syllables. 2 Background noise is prevalent. Message is readable with difficulty and requires

repetition. 1 Evidence that transmission being made. Voice message is barely discernible

and no words are understood. Unusable. 0 No transmission is heard. No activity on the channel is evident.

Minimum capacity requirements are defined as better than a Grade of Service (GOS) .01, which is statistically defined as less than 10 in 1,000 calls could be delayed as a result of insufficient system capacity and the delay, itself, should not exceed 0.5 seconds. Today, coverage deficiencies in certain areas of the County are extensive, primarily on the western and eastern borders of the County and along the Ocmulgee River. Capacity is not currently an issue but could be in the future, primarily due to the growth of agencies and the increased number of users. TCS evaluated multiple conceptual design solutions that have potential to address these key issues. One of these potential solutions includes a completely new 800MHz network incorporating a new simulcast design.

43


SHORT TERM/ IMMEDIATE OPTIONS Radio System Improvement Options During analysis of the existing analog VHF radio systems for each of the Ben Hill County agencies, it was determined that there is substantial degradation in the performance of each of the systems to varying degrees. For example, as evidenced by the coverage maps in Section 2, the Sheriff’s analog VHF system appears to have a 24 dB loss in output power. The following options should be considered for the purpose of diagnosing and correcting the losses in each system as these losses would likely continue to affect public safety operations even after an upgrade in user radios (i.e. Kenwood Nexedge). Further, any corrective action taken could potentially benefit all users and would ensure that the County’s radio equipment is capable of supporting its first responders moving forward.

1) Confirm radio programming in radios (Kenwood and Motorola) - A heavy sampling of both mobile and portable radios needs to be evaluated to ensure that each radio is correctly programmed based on power output, bandwidth, etc. If numerous radios are found to be incorrectly programmed then the sample would be adjusted to include all mobiles and portables.

2) Confirm licensing/ Effective Radiated Power (ERP) at each site - Each tower site’s

basestation and repeater should be checked to confirm that the output power and ERP match the FCC license. It is possible that site transmitters are not operating at the maximum allowable power.

3) Confirm VHF amplifier settings - The amplifier’s configuration needs to be

confirmed to ensure it is configured for maximum effect. Although the use of amplifiers is acceptable for the VHF band, the combined output power of the radio, antenna system and amplifier cannot exceed the maximum ERP of the FCC license.

4) Perform an intermodulation (IM) study on licensed VHF frequencies - An IM study

will verify that FCC licensed channels are not causing self-interference due to poorly/closely spaced transmit and receive frequencies. This is an unfortunate consequence of operating in the VHF band. Unlike the UHF and 700/800 bands, the VHF band is poorly organized and coordinated creating a potential for self-interference.

5) Effective sensitivity or “noise floor” measurements - Another side effect of the VHF

band is potential interference from sources outside of the County. Again, caused by poorly coordinated frequency allocation, and the excellent propagation characteristics of VHF, it is possible that surrounding Cities and Counties have been licensed to use the same frequencies and are causing interference on the Ben Hill systems. Noise floor measurements would determine the extent to which each site is receiving outside interference.

44


6) Line sweeps should be performed on each of the active transmission line/antennas at

each site. This will determine antenna systems viability and if there is any loss associated with damage of corrosion.

7) As shown in Section 2, each Ben Hill agency has its own license. This license

authorizes, according to multiple factors such as location, intended use, potential interference, number of users, etc., the use of a frequency, and determines the maximum allowable ERP of the frequency. For example, EMS has two transmit frequencies with a maximum ERP of 316 watts, the Sheriff’s Office has a transmit frequency with a maximum of 250 watts and the Road Department and Volunteer Fire are each limited to 200W ERP.

The sharing of frequencies in a pool needs to be considered to allow the maximum possible out power for each agency.

8) As described above, each frequency is licensed for operation at and within a given radius of a specific location. Any deviations for the license must be amended to reflect changes. For example, any changes that have occurred because of previous suggestions. It has also been noted that the Sheriff’s frequencies are licensed for the jail tower, but are in operation at the Triangle Pool tower. The use of Nexedge radios also requires an amendment to existing licenses.

9) If corrections are made to the basestations, repeaters or user radios as a result of

previous suggestions, the radio coverage in areas with known coverage issues should be retested to confirm improvements.

45


Coverage Improvement Options

10) Consideration should also be made to relocate to other tower sites or to build new towers that would offer an advantage, such as location, height or tower quality over existing sites.

Optional Tower Sites Mediacom Tower

Lat: 31°44'12.19"N Long: 83°16'17.77"W ASR#: 1018547 Height: 400’ AGL Site Elevation: 374’ AMSL Tower Type: Guyed Build Date: 10/1999 TIA-222 Build Revision: F TIA-222 Current Revision: G.2 Owner: MCC Georgia LLC

46


Mobile Talk-Back - Analog VHF - 99.9%

Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/o SMA - Analog VHF - 89.8%

47


319/182 Tower

Lat: 31°46'44.14"N Long: 83° 5'5.38"W ASR#: 1255270 Height: 320’ AGL Site Elevation: 246’ AMSL Tower Type: Guyed Build Date: 08/2010 TIA-222 Build Revision: G.2 TIA-222 Current Revision: G.2 Owner: Triumph Investments, LLC

48


Mobile Talk-Back - Analog VHF - 93.8%

Portable Indoor Talk-Back - Analog VHF - 66.9%

49


Western Greenfield Site - Potential New Tower Site

Lat: 31°47'46.38"N Long: 83°23'7.95"W ASR#: -- Height: Proposed 300’ AGL Site Elevation: 394’ AMSL Tower Type: -- Build Date: -- TIA-222 Build Revision: -- TIA-222 Current Revision: -- Owner: --

50


Mobile Talk-Back - Proposed 300’ Tower - Analog VHF - 97.1%

Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/o SMA - Proposed 300’ Tower - Analog VHF - 71.4%

51


Proposed Combined Analog VHF Coverage

Proposed 3 Site Mobile Talk-Back Combined Coverage - Analog VHF - 100%

Proposed 3 Site Portable Talk-Back Combined Coverage - Analog VHF - 91.3%

52


11) The transition to Nexedge digital radios is mandatory for the Sheriff’s Office in order

to maintain the level of daily interoperability that is required for officer safety for both the Sheriff’s Office and the Fitzgerald Police Department. Both agencies rely on each other, daily, to provide support and backup during law enforcement operations. Although communications can be achieved through patching or dispatchers, this level of interoperability is not recommended for law enforcement. The purchase of Kenwood Nexedge radios would also improve coverage for users throughout the County as shown below. Although the gain is only approximately 3 dB from analog to digital, the Nexedge technology also reduces potential interference, as explained in Section 3, and coincidentally is easier to license due to the associated FDMA technology.

Mobile Talk-Back - Nexedge Digital VHF - 98.9%

53


Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/SMA - Nexedge Digital VHF - 81.5%

54


12) Finally, the Kenwood Nexedge technology allows for the “trunking” of multiple sites

to support radio coverage. This allows each site to receive mobile and portable radio transmissions from any user, effectively extending the coverage of each agency’s system. Consideration should be made to connect County sites through existing unused fiber.

Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/SMA- Nexedge Digital VHF - 91.6%

Portable Indoor Talk-Back w/SMA - Nexedge Digital VHF - 98.4%

55


Proposed 3 Site Mobile Talk-Back - Nexedge Digital VHF - 100%

Proposed 3 Site Portable Talk-Back w/o SMA - Nexedge Digital VHF - 100% Potential Fiber Optic Backhaul

To support a Nexedge trunked system design, system backhaul would be required. Ben Hill has extensive amounts of fiber optics already placed throughout the County potentially available for use in connecting tower site together for backhaul purposes.

56


LONG TERM OPTIONS (3-5 Years) 700/800MHz Licensing Options 800 MHz - Region 10 Plan Channel Allotment - potentially available (0 Channels) No 800MHz channels have been allotted to Ben Hill County. 700MHz - Region 9 Plan Channel Allotment - potentially available (14 Channels) Channel Base Frequency Mobile Frequency 241-242 770.50625 MHz 800.50625 MHz 243-244 770.51875 MHz 800.51875 MHz 389-390 771.43125 MHz 801.43125 MHz

391-392 771.44375 MHz 801.44375 MHz

501-502 772.13125 MHz 802.13125 MHz 503-504 772.14375 MHz 802.14375 MHz

549-550 772.43125 MHz 802.43125 MHz 551-552 772.44375 MHz 802.44375 MHz

601-602 772.75625 MHz 802.75625 MHz

603-604 772.76875 MHz 802.76875 MHz

709-710 773.43125 MHz 803.43125 MHz

711-712 773.44375 MHz 803.44375 MHz

829-830 774.18125 MHz 804.18125 MHz 831-832 774.19375 MHz 804.19375 MHz

57


800 MHz Conceptual Solution Coverage The first step in determining a conceptual approach was to perform a coverage analysis to determine the number of sites needed to meet portable radio coverage objectives. The results of that analysis show that the use of two existing sites could potentially reach a 95% (portable indoor talkback) coverage level countywide. Triangle Pool and Road Dept Tower

Portable Talk-Back w/o SMA - 92.1%

Triangle Pool and Mediacom Combined

Portable Talk-Back w/o SMA - 93.7%

58


Ideally Located Towers

Portable Talk-Back w/o SMA - Delay Spread - 98.1%

Mobile Talk-Back - Delay Spread - 98.9%

59


Microwave Backhaul Loop To support a new radio system design, a new microwave subsystem would be required. For the purposes of this conceptual design, TCS envisions a loop protected and monitored hot standby network. The County simulcast cell would be connected by loop protected links, shown in green below.

Proposed Microwave Backhaul

60


P25 800MHz Simulcast Trunked Digital Radio System The proposed long term conceptual solution designed to meet the future needs of Ben Hill County’s users includes a three site, eight channel, APCO P25 800 MHz, simulcast, trunked, digital radio system. This system will leverage advanced linear simulcast technology to provide superior radio coverage throughout a minimum of 95% of the County, indoor and out, for both mobiles and portables.

This proposed solution would potentially include the following:

• Construction of a new tower(s) • New shelters, generators, UPSs • New radio system infrastructure

Base Stations/ Repeaters Master Site/ Control Point Frequency Standard Combiners/Multicouplers Antenna Systems

• New microwave backhaul system Dual OC-3, Hot Standby Radios DC Power System Antenna Systems

• New dispatch console radio equipment Mic, headphone, headsets, speakers Interoperability/Backup control stations

• Training for system users, dispatchers and managers • New mobiles/portables for user agencies • Reprogramming of existing P25 radios • Installation, implementation, and testing of new system • Decommission and removal of old system and towers

Conceptual Simulcast System Cost Estimate Presented below is TCS’ cost estimate for this P25 simulcast conceptual design. The cost of the actual system is dependent upon the system requirements and features included in the final specification, but these estimates can be considered reasonably accurate for budgetary purposes today. They are based upon TCS’ understanding of Ben Hill County’s requirements, resources, and upon recent competitive pricing for similar equipment and systems.

Additionally, estimated yearly costs for annual maintenance of the system are included.

61


Ben Hill County Pricing Summary

Description Total

Voice Infrastructure $3,276,000.00

Systems Integration $402,000.00

Voice Infrastructure Total $3,678,000.00

Site Construction $1,310,000.00

Site Construction Contingency $262,000.00

Site Construction Total $1,572,000.00

Microwave System $584,500.00

Microwave System Integration $96,000.00

Microwave Contingency $128,250.00

Microwave Total $808,750.00

Dispatch Center Equipment $544,025.00

Dispatch Center Integration $16,500.00

Dispatch Total $560,525.00

PSG Subscribers Radios $399,885.00

NPSG Subscribers Radios/Control Stations $85,000.00

Total Subscribers $484,885.00

Ben Hill Grand Total $7,104,160.00

Competitive Procurement Process

Infrastructure $4,544,062.50

Dispatch $420,500.00

Subscribers $375,000.00

Competitive Process Grand Total $5,339,562.50

62


Maintenance Services (Yearly) Software Services $45,000.00

Infrastructure Equipment $90,000.00

Simulcast Control Point $20,000.00

Network Switching Center $10,000.00

Microwave $11,250.00

Subscribers $4,500.00

HVAC $9,000.00

Generators $7,500.00

UPS $6,000.00

Logging Recorder $10,000.00

Network Preventative Maintenance (twice annually) $15,000.00

Maintenance Services Plan Total $228,250.00

63


7.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

Short Term

After thorough examination of Ben Hill County’s radio environment, including a needs assessment, user interviews, propagation analysis and extensive research, Tusa Consulting recommends the following course of action:

1) Demolish (immediately) or replace (at a later date if necessary) the Road DepartmentTower. After a visual inspection of the tower and guy termination points, it is clearthat this tower is an extreme risk to County personnel that work/operate with thetower’s fall perimeter. The tower was estimated to be built in the 1970’s, is visiblydistorted and crooked, and has substantially corroded guy wire components.

In addition, the tower has no obstruction lighting system (OLS) and is not registered in the FCC’s antenna structure registration (ASR) database. This is a mandatory requirement of both the FAA and the FCC for any tower over 200’ tall, including antennas. This tower is 199’ with half of a 40’ dB228 antenna extending past the top of the tower for a total height of 219’ AGL.

The location of this tower is ideal for supporting radio coverage with the County and consideration should be made to replace it with a taller more robust taller.

2) Update site grounding (all sites) to current industry standards. A well designedgrounding system is critical to the reliability of public safety radio systems. Each ofthe current sites have deficient grounding that places the basestation/repeaters at riskfor damage from lightning induced electrical surges.

3) Immediately perform SHORT TERM options #1-6, and #9 if necessary.

#1 - Confirm radio programming #2 - Confirm licensing/ site ERP

64


#3 - Confirm amplifier configuration #4 - Perform IM study #5 - Perform noise floor measurements #6 - Perform line sweeps #9 - Retest radio coverage

4) Consider benefits/ of SHORT TERM options #7 and #10.

#7 - Pool licenses #10 - Relocate to more beneficial towers

5) Complete SHORT TERM option #11 and retest coverage. #11 - Convert to Nexedge digital radios (Sheriff’s Office)

6) Perform SHORT TERM option #8 as necessary. #8 - Amend and update licenses

7) Consider SHORT TERM option #12. #12 - Apply Nexedge trunking capability

Long Term

1) In consideration of the future, Tusa Consulting recommends that Ben Hill County begin planning for a Regional APCO P25 700/800 MHz linear simulcast trunked digital radio system designed to meet the needs of Ben Hill County, the users within the County and other GEMA Region 8 Counties/Cities. A regional approach will be very appealing to federal funding sources, for the life of the system, as it would allow Ben Hill County to meet the highest levels of interoperability as outlined in the Interoperability Continuum in Section 5 above. At the conclusion of this project, the County would have a fully modernized public safety wireless communications system that is compatible with industry standards, exceeds current requirements, is capable of expansion to support future growth, and is capable of being maintained and supported for the 15-20 year lifespan of the system.

2) Begin consideration and planning of a regional dispatch center, based in the City of Fitzgerald. There are several examples of counties, cities and agencies that have greatly improved service to their citizens by pooling resources and building a modern and advanced consolidated dispatch agency. Fitzgerald and Ben Hill County have extensive amounts of available fiber optic based bandwidth that makes it an ideal location for both a P25 network hub and a regional dispatch center.

65


APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

1) Region 10, Georgia National Public Safety and Special Emergency Communications Plan, Georgia800 MHz Regional Planning Committee, Rev. 1, with amendments, November 2006.

2) Public Safety 700MHz Regional Communications Plan, Region 10 - State of Georgia 700MHzRegional Planning Committee (RPC), August 2008.

3) Georgia Emergency Management Agency/Homeland Security, www.gema.state.ga.us,February 2014.

4) Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database System (CAPRAD),www.caprad.org, February 2014.

5) Georgia Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP), 2012.

6) TIA-222-G, Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas,Telecommunications Industry Association, 2006.

7) Radio Analysis and Propagation Tool Repository (RAPTR), Version 24.0.227, Harris, 2014.

66

http://www.gema.state.ga.us/


APPENDIX B - Needs Assessment Questionnaire

67


68


69


70


71


APPENDIX C

Propagation Analysis Parameters

Analog VHF Analysis Parameters - Page 1

72


Analog VHF Analysis Parameters - Page 2

73


Proposed Optional Sites VHF Analysis Parameters - Page 1

74


Proposed Optional Sites VHF Analysis Parameters - Page 2

75


Nexedge Analysis Parameters - Page 1

76


Nexedge Analysis Parameters - Page 2

77


800 MHz Analysis Parameters - Page 1

78


800 MHz Analysis Parameters - Page 2

79


END.

80

Documents

Ben Hill County, Georgia Meetings/Special Called... · Nexedge vs. P25 ... Nexedge vs. Mototrbo ... public safety radio communications, was retained by Ben Hill County, Georgia, to