Future of Tetra

[primig]

Just wondering where people think its going to go next!

[primig]

A paper on the future development of Tetra from a German consultancy in Nov. 2011.

Contents
1 Management Summary ............................................................... 3
2 Evolution of TETRA ................................................................... 4
2.1 Definition of mission critical communication ............................................... 4
2.2 History of mobile radio evolution ............................................................. 4
2.3 Why TETRA over LTE will not work and why LTE will not become mission critical ... 6
2.4 How to avoid repeating the shortcomings of PMR narrowband system standardization? ................................................................................. 7
2.5 Requirements for a 4G broadband PMR technology ........................................ 7
2.6 Migration to TETRA 3 ............................................................................ 8
Abbreviations ..................................................................................10
About ............................................................................................11

[primig]

A collection of some of the papers available on DMR vs Tetra from various sources:
Hytera, Oct 2010
********, Dec 2011
Radio Activity S.r.l., Sep 2009
Rohill, Jan 2010
Tait, Aug 2014
TCCA Dec 2013

[motorolatrbo]

Would like to read those articles posted but due to the reputation point system I can't :(

[kondoros]

Bad news for the future of TETRA in Greece :

http://www.tetra-applications.com/28986/

On the other hand Greeks were paying Five millions (5.000.000) Euros per year for a voice-only system !

[primig]

Technical Comparison Between Tetra, P25, Tetrapol and DMR
from Hytera

@ kondoros
Are the police really planning to switch back to analog? I hadn't even imagined that when setting up the poll options !

[kondoros]

From August 31, 2014 - Local Time (GMT+2) 23:59:59 - TETRA for Greek Police Forces is history.
The provider (consortium SIEMENS-SAIC) turned off system's main switch ... :D

From the time above until today analog (non-encrypted voice VHF) system is in use despite the fact that all their analog radios have voice inversion scramblers installed.

[primig]

LTE 101 & 201 Technical Overview for Public Safety Communications Staff
August 29, 2013
Texas Public Safety Broadband Program

http://www.4shared.com/rar/CzlOfO-0ce/PubSafeBrdbndIntroLTE.html

Contents:
LTE 101
Texas1 Road to PS LTE
What is Public Safety Broadband?
PS LTE will equip responders with real time data to do their jobs better and more efficiently through.....
Potential Hazards
Disaster Declarations
FirstNet Historical Development
It is happening NOW!
Rural Texas Needs
Texas is preparing for LTE: But we need your help!
Harris County - Baytown
College Station Disaster City
Scenario #1 - Collapsed Building
Search and Rescue
EMS - Transport
Scenario #2 - Suspicious Package
Live Video Telconference:IC, Bomb Squad & FBI Bomb Expert
Suspicious Package: Live video from Bomb Robot
Scenario #3 - Active Shooter
Active Shooter
Texas Statistics
North Texas Tornadoes

LTE 201
Comparison Of LTE To LMR (Caution urged!)
What is the difference between current Public Safety radio systems and the FirstNet Broadband Network?
What additional capabilities will be available with the NPSBN?
Mission Critical Requirements
LMR uses a single channel per user or Talk Group / LTE uses the entire bandwidth for all applications
Can LTE leverage existing wireless sites?
Can site sharing add to potential cost savings for the build-out of the NPSBN?
Take-Aways on LTE vs. LMR Coverage
LTE and 700MHz Spectrum Band Plan
Important Caveats!
Conceptual National Public Safety Broadband Network
Basic LTE Architecture
LTE Sub-carriers
Realistic System Capacity
LTE Uses Cellular Architecture with 1 Frequency
PS LTE Coverage Issues
Rough Idea of LTE Cell Radius
LTE Coverage – UE Comparison
School Playground Analogy of an Evolved Packet Core
Evolved Packet Core - "Core"
Harris County BIG-Net Overview
LTE Backhaul Network
LTE Backhaul - Take-Aways
LTE Public Safety User Equipment
Examples of BC14 UE Devices
FirstNet
FirstNet Update
17 RFIs:
FirstNet Org Chart

[primig]

PPDR Technological Gaps

October 31st , 2013
Public Protection and Disaster Relief – Transformation Center

Table of Contents
Executive summary

1 Introduction.
1.1 Scope and objectives
1.2 Background and inputs.
1.3 Structure of the document

2 PPDR Requirements overview
2.1 Users
2.2 Coverage area
2.3 Required network topology
2.4 Node connectivity models
2.5 Capacity in terms of type of data and required bandwidth
2.6 Mobility requirements
2.7 Interoperability requirements
2.8 Service availability, reliability and resilience
2.9 Performance requirements
2.10 Security
2.11 Specific voice communication requirements
2.12 Specific data communication requirements

3 Capabilities of PPDR network technologies
3.1 Current PPDR technologies
3.2 Public networks
3.3 Candidate technologies for future PPDR applications
3.4 Transversal communication concepts
3.4.1 Software-Defined Radio
3.4.2 Cognitive Radio

4 PPDR Technological gaps
4.1 Gaps of current PPDR technologies
4.1.1 TETRA Release 1
4.1.2 TETRA Release 2
4.1.3 TETRAPOL
4.1.4 Analogue PMR
4.1.5 Digital PMR
4.1.6 DMR
4.1.7 SATCOM
4.2 Gaps of public networks
4.2.1 CDMA2000
4.2.2 GSM
4.2.3 GPRS/EDGE
4.2.4 UMTS
4.2.5 HSPA/HSPA+
4.3 Gaps of candidate technologies
4.3.1 LTE
4.3.2 Wi-Fi
4.3.3 WiMAX
4.3.4 Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs)
4.4 Interoperability capabilities.

5 Conclusions

Annex A Reference & Relevant Readings
Annex B List of acronyms
Annex C Analysis of potential PPDR network solutions .47
C.1 TETRA Release 1
C.2 TETRA Release 2
C.3 TETRAPOL
C.4 Analogue PMR
C.5 Digital PMR
C.6 DMR
C.7 SATCOM.
C.8 CDMA2000..
C.9 GSM
C.10 GPRS/EDGE
C.11 UMTS
C.12 HSPA/HSPA+
C.13 LTE (public/dedicated)
C.14 Wi-Fi (public/dedicated).
C.15 WiMAX
C.16 Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs)
C.17 Software-Defined Radio (SDR)
C.18 Cognitive Radio (CR)

[primig]

Future of Public Safety Communications
International Public Safety Forum
PMR Expo
Nov.2013

http://www.4shared.com/rar/Oz6JSpuUba/FutPubSafCom.html

Vision for the future
• Towards a Broadband Future (Roadblocks on the way to Critical LTE) - Tony Gray, Regional Business Director, P3 and TCCA Board Member
• A Clear Path to the Future - Cassidian (as the PMR Industry representative) - Dr. Markus Kolland, CEO, Cassidian Communications GmbH


High speed data as soon as possible - even if secure, but not critical
• Governmental Mobile Virtual Network Operator - case Belgium Daniel Hache, ASTRID (Public Safety Network Operator, Belgium)

How to address the need for critical data
• Critical data on TETRA Enhanced Data Service (TEDS) - case Norway
Tor Helge, Lyngsti1ll, dNk (directorate for emergency communication, Norway)

How to ensure End-ta-end criticality beyond the air interface
• Key components for critical service under one roof - case Finland
Jarmo, Vinkvist, CEO, Virveverkko (Public Safety Network Operator, Finland)


Paradigm shifts in public safety eco-system - can there be any?

[primig]

PPDR’S CURRENT AND FUTURE SCENARIOS
July 31st, 2013
PPDR-TC
Public Protection and Disaster Relief – Transformation Centre

Table of Contents
Executive summary
Types of PPDR operational scenario
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope& Objectives
1.2 PPDR Definition
1.3 PPDR agencies and organisational structure
1.4 Types of PPDR operational scenario
1.5 Background & inputs
1.6 Structure of this document
2 High Level Communication Scenarios identified in previous studies
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Key findings from the IABG and WIK / Aegis studies
2.2.1 Structure of PPDR Agencies in Germany
2.2.2 Organisations approached by IABG
2.2.3 High Level Operational Scenarios identified by IABG
2.2.4 Specific applications identified by PPDR agencies and users
2.3 Proposed High Level Communication Scenarios for the PPDR-TC Project
2.4 Types of Communication required by PPDR users
2.5 Communications Priorities Matrix
3 Operational PPDR Scenarios identified from previous studies
3.1 Examples of operational scenarios identified by ECC Project Team FM49
3.1.1 Introduction
3.1.2 Scenario 1: Royal Wedding, London, 2011
3.1.3 Scenario 2: London street riots, 2011
3.1.4 Scenario 3: Road Traffic Accident
3.1.5 Traffic Stop Scenario
3.2 Hypothetical Major Incident case study submitted to US FCC by New York City PPDR Authorities, 2009
3.2.1 Background
3.2.2 Hypothetical Major Incident Scenario
3.2.3 Communication Scenarios Analysis
3.3 Canadian hypothetical major incident and day-to-day activity case studies
3.3.1 Introduction
3.3.2 Scenarios
3.3.3 Resources involved in the scenarios
3.3.4 Applications
3.3.5 Communication Scenarios Analysis
3.4 Relevant information from previous and running EU projects
3.4.1 HIT-GATE
3.4.2 E-SPONDER
3.4.3 eVACUATE
4 Other Examples of PPDR Operational Scenarios identified
4.1 Dealing with Major Incidents and Disasters
4.1.1 Emilia earthquake, Northern Italy
4.1.2 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, 2011
4.1.3 London Underground Bombings, 2005
4.1.4 Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell underground station on 22 July 2005
4.1.5 2008 Greek Riots
4.2 Dealing with Planned Major Events
4.2.1 2012 London Olympics
4.2.2 Glastonbury Music Festival
4.2.3 Notting Hill Carnival
4.3 Conclusions
4.3.1 Relative importance of specific wireless communication services
4.3.2 Role of video and broadband communications
4.3.3 Relative importance of the eight high level communication scenarios
5 Feedback from Stakeholder Interviews
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Questionnaire structure and content .
5.3 Stakeholder respondents
5.4 Summary of data gathered
5.4.1 Hellenic Fire Corps
5.4.2 Hellenic Police (national police force of Greece)
5.4.3 Centre for Security Studies (KEMEA, Greece)
5.4.4 Civil Protection Agency of Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy)
5.4.5 Emilia Romagna 118 service (Italy)
5.4.6 UK Ambulance Radio Service
5.4.7 East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (ESFRS) UK
5.4.8 UK Home Office
5.4.9 Surrey Police (UK)
5.4.10 British Red Cross
5.4.11 Scottish National Health Service (NHS)
5.4.12 Scottish Mountain Rescue
5.4.13 Royal National Lifeboat Institution (UK)
5.4.14 Airwave Solutions (UK PPDR TETRA network provider)
5.4.15 Vector Command
5.4.16 Lithuanian Fire and Rescue Department
5.4.17 Public Security Police, Portugal
6 Analysis of data gathered from Stakeholders
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Day-to-day Operational Scenarios identified by Stakeholders
6.2.1 Police
6.2.2 Fire
6.2.3 Ambulance
6.2.4 Other
6.3 Major Events and Incidents identified by Stakeholders
6.3.1 Greece
6.3.2 Italy
6.3.3 Portugal
6.3.4 UK
6.4 Analysis of data from questionnaires and interviews
6.4.1 Priorities of Key Services for PPDR missions
6.4.2 Priorities of Key Communications Characteristics
6.4.3 Technology Preferences
7 Linkage between operational scenarios, services and applications
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Current Situation
7.2.1 Existing generic PPDR communication facilities
7.2.2 Examples of specialist communication facilities currently deployed
7.2.3 Deficiencies identified with existing systems
7.3 Future needs identified (applications / services)
7.3.1 Video
7.3.2 Other data applications
7.3.3 Improved interoperability and co-ordination between PPDR agencies
7.3.4 Improved coverage
7.3.5 Location tracking
7.3.6 Resilience and Backup
7.3.7 Access to internal and external data sources
8 Conclusions
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Conclusions based on previous studies
8.3 Conclusions based on specific PPDR incident case studies
8.4 Conclusions from stakeholder discussions
8.5 Overall conclusions
Annex A References & Relevant Readings
Annex B - List of Acronyms

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Examples of PPDR activities
Figure 2: Example of Communication Priorities Matrix used to analyse communication needs for specific operational scenarios or users
Figure 3: Communication matrix for Royal Wedding scenario
Figure 4: Communication matrix for London Riots scenario
Figure 5: Communication matrix for Road Traffic Accident scenario
Figure 6: Communication matrix for Traffic Stop scenario
Figure 7: Communication matrix for a hypothetical major PPDR incident in New York City scenario
Figure 8: Communication matrix for the chemical plant explosion scenario
Figure 9: Communication matrix for Emilia earthquake scenario
Figure 10: Extent of the Great East Japan Earthquake
Figure 11: Communication priorities matrix for Great East Japan earthquake scenario
Figure 12: Location of the July 7th London bombings
Figure 13: Communication priorities matrix for July 7th London bombings
Figure 14: Communication priority matrix for Stockwell shooting
Figure 15: Communication matrix for 2012 London Olympics
Figure 16: Illustration of wireless body worn camera of the type used at Glastonbury
Figure 17: Communication matrix for Glastonbury Music Festival
Figure 18: Communication matrix for Glastonbury Music Festival
Figure 19: Relative priority of different communication services (based on our communication scenarios analysis of each incident)
Figure 20: Relative importance of the eight high level communication scenarios (based on our communication scenarios analysis of each incident)
Figure 21: Communication priority matrix for Hellenic Fire Corps
Figure 22: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Hellenic Fire Corps (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 23: Communication priority matrix for Hellenic Police
Figure 24: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Hellenic Police (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 25: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for KEMEA (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 26: Communication priority matrix for Emilia Romagna Civil Protection Agency
Figure 27: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Emilia CPA (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 28: Communication priority matrix for Emilia Romagna 118 service
Figure 29: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Emilia Romagna 118 service (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 30: Communication priority matrix for UK Ambulance Service
Figure 31: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for UK ambulance service (based on discussion)
Figure 32: Communication priority matrix for East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service
Figure 33: Communication priority matrix for UK Home Office Error! Bookmark not defined
Figure 34: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for UK home office (based on discussion)
Figure 35: Communication priority matrix for Surrey Police force
Figure 36: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Surrey Police (based on discussion)
Figure 37: Communication priority matrix for the British Red Cross
Figure 38: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for British Red Cross (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 39: Communication priority matrix for the Scottish NHS
Figure 40: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for British Red Cross (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 41: Communication priority matrix for Scottish Mountain Rescue Service
Figure 42: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Scottish Mountain Rescue Service (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 43: Communication priority matrix for the RNLI
Figure 44: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for the RNLI (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 45: Communication priority matrix for Airwave Solutions
Figure 46: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Airwave Solutions (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 47: Communication priority matrix for Vector Command
Figure 48: Communication priority matrix for Vector Command
Figure 49: Communication priority matrix for Lithuanian Fire and Rescue Department
Figure 50: Service, communication characteristic and technology priorities for Lithuanian Fire and Rescue Department (based on questionnaire response)
Figure 51: Communication priority matrix for 5.4.17 Public Security Police, Portugal
Figure 52: Communication priority matrix for 5.4.17 Public Security Police, Portugal
Figure 53: Priority accorded to key services by each respondent on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority)
Figure 54: Overall rankings of key service priority across all respondents on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority)
Figure 55: Priority accorded to key communication characteristics by each respondent on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority)
Figure 56: Overall rankings of key communication characteristics across all respondents on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority)
Figure 57: Technology preferences of each respondent on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority) on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority)
Figure 58: Overall rankings of technology preferences across all respondents on a scale of 0 (not required) to 10 (high priority)

List of Tables
Table 1: PPDR Agencies interviewed in IABG PPDR study
Table 2: Applications identified by PPDR agencies for Scenario 6 (access to information from the Internet or other external sources)
Table 3: Typical application data rates on the NYCW in PPDR radio network
Table 4: Estimated requirements for Police dealing with hypothetical major PPDR incident
Table 5: Estimated requirements for Fire Brigade dealing with hypothetical major PPDR incident
Table 6: Estimated requirements for OEM dealing with hypothetical major PPDR incident
Table 7: Estimated requirements for dealing with hypothetical major PPDR incident in New York City
Table 8: Resources involved in the CSS scenarios
Table 9: Applications involved in the CSS scenarios
Table 10: PPDR resourced deployed in the aftermath of the Emilia earthquake
Table 11: Response timeline for the July 7th London bombings
Table 12: Stakeholder respondents