Vhf-Uhf Narrowbanding Guide 2012

VHF and UHF
Narrowbanding:
Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline
RadioResource
TM
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Sponsored by
Educational Series
2 I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding: Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline
Contents
Foreword: Sandra Wendelken, Editor, MissionCritical Communications .................3
Section 1: Policy and Regulatory
Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away, Sandra Wendelken ..............6
Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays, Wesley Wright .....................9
FCC Active in Narrowbanding Education, Ralph A. Haller ............................12
FCCs Barnett Talks Narrowbanding..............................................................13
Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials..............................14
Section 2: Operations and Procedures
Coordination is Critical, John Johnson ..........................................................25
7 Narrowbanding Tips, Leonard Koehnen .....................................................29
Fallacies and Facts, Leonard Koehnen .........................................................34
Narrowbanding Prep, Joe Blaschka Jr ..........................................................36
Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?, Klaus Bender .....................................41
7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance, Nick Ruark .....................................47
Section 3: Technology Solutions
Simulcast Networks, Ed OConnor, Joe Blaschka Jr. and John Thompson ..51
Affordable Coverage Options, Joe Ross and Rick Burke ..............................56
A Roadmap for Signal Testing, Carl Peek .....................................................61
Rural Agencies Adopt Digital Communications, Sandra Wendelken ............66
The Big Digital Decision, Todd Ellis ...............................................................68
Section 4: User Best Practices and Case Studies
Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding.............................................75
How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?.............................................77
Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments, Sandra Wendelken..................82
Railroads Weigh Digital Options, Del Williams ..............................................87
Section 5: Funding
Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project, Rick Burke ................................93
Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements, Vince Siragusa ...98
Section 6: Industry Research
Reader Survey: 80% Plan to Meet Narrowbanding Deadline......................103
Do Most Narrowbanding Projects Include Digital? ......................................105
NPSTC: Most Licensees Need Additional Equipment.................................106
APCO Tracks Narrowband Licenses by State .............................................107
Public Safety Ahead of Business/Industrial Licensees................................108
Sponsors..............................................................................................................109
RadioResource
TM
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Educational Series
2012 By Pandata Corp. All Rights Reserved.

Pandata Corp., 7108 S. Alton Way, Building H,
Centennial, CO 80112. Telephone: 303-792-2390.
Website: www.MCCmag.com
3 I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding: Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline
Foreward
By Sandra Wendelken
In February 2009, the month the long-awaited digital TV
(DTV) deadline arrived, I wrote in MissionCritical
Communications magazine: Another deadline, Jan. 1, 2013,
isnt that far off. Indeed, that date is now just months away.
When the VHF and UHF narrowbanding mandate was first
set in 2004, 2013 seemed like a long time coming. But now there is less
than a year before the deadline hits. Licenses for VHF and UHF systems
that arent converted to narrowband channels by the 2013 deadline will be
subject to whatever consequences the FCC chooses to impose.
Many public-safety agencies have taken care of the new 12.5-kilohertz
channel requirement by implementing new Project 25 (P25) or other systems. Many utilities with large systems also have upgraded their networks to
the new channel requirements. However, narrowbanding applies to radios
and infrastructure. Many systems and licensees may still be operating in
wideband 25-kilohertz mode even though their subscriber units are capable of narrowband, because their wideband-only infrastructure repeaters or base stations havent been changed out.
Many in the industry think the majority of small- and even mid-sized
networks in operation throughout the country are not compliant. Whats
worse, dealers and consultants fear some of those operators dont know or
are ignoring the pending deadline for various reasons. Also, how will all of
this affect interoperability when some systems are operating in narrowband
mode and some systems are still wideband?
Take advantage of the vast amount of information this eBook offers to
move forward with and complete your narrowbanding project. Any question
you might have can likely be answered in this unique resource. If you find a
question or topic that isnt addressed, contact me immediately and our editorial staff will find the information and send updates to those who register and
download the eBook.
You can reach me by emailing editor@RRMediaGroup.com or calling
303-793-2390 x 110. Now get busy narrowbanding!
MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding
Why do leading police departments

trust Kenwood?
"We have had remarkable success with the Kenwood NEXEDGE

system. We're after what keeps our officers safe and we have to
use our money wisely. The NEXEDGE system has far surpassed
our expectations in coverage and clarity of signal."
William T. (Tracy) Neal, Communications Director,
McDuffie County Sheriff's Office

Agencies with NEXEDGE radios across the

U.S. all agree about the sheer toughness of
Kenwood digital mobiles and portables, as
well as the superb audio quality. Kenwood
NEXEDGE radios support both existing
analog as well as advanced 6.25 and 12.5 kHz
digital modes, so your agency can migrate to
new spectrum requirements at your pace and
according to your budget.
Scan with your phone for NEXEDGE

information and current promotions.
1-800-950-5005
ADS#02812
Section 1:
Policy and Regulatory
Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away, Sandra Wendelken ........................6
Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays, Wesley Wright...............................9
FCC Active in Narrowbanding Education, Ralph A. Haller ......................................12
FCCs Barnett Talks Narrowbanding .......................................................................13
Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials .......................................14
Sponsored by
6 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory
Crunch Time: Deadline

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

an extension. What they do need is a good basis for the requested extension, he said. The FCC has stated that it will be disinclined to grant narrowbanding extensions, and licensees should proceed with that in mind. A
knowledgeable attorney can advise on whether a particular justification
might be viewed disfavorably by the FCC and make sure that the licensee
has addressed the factors that the commission wants licensees to include in
extension requests.
Licensees better have a good excuse for not being able to meet the
deadline, said APCOs Latif. Based on what Ive seen, the FCC isnt going
to accept the excuse of not having funds. The mandate has been planned
for 18 years, so I dont think the commission is going to buy that we dont
have funds.
In November, Rep. Steve Rothman from New Jersey introduced a bill to
direct the FCC to extend the final deadline for VHF and UHF narrowbanding
by two years. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce but hasnt seen movement.
We are not changing our course in regard to narrowbanding in response
to the introduction of this bill, said Furth.
Narrowbanding Brings
FCC Processing Delays
By Wesley Wright
The FCCs 2013 narrowbanding deadline is quickly approaching, and applicants for FCC radio licenses are already feeling the
effects. The FCCs Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has
received a substantial number of applications for new and modified private land mobile licenses in the VHF (150 174 MHz) and
UHF (421 512 MHz) bands, seeking authority to operate on narrowband assignments. This influx of applications has caused the commissions processing
time for private land mobile applications to increase significantly in recent
months. The land mobile application increase appears to have extended the processing time for microwave applications as well.
The FCCs first narrowbanding deadline was Jan. 1, 2011. As of this date, licensees can no longer file applications for new wideband (25 kilohertz) operations or modify existing wideband stations to expand the authorized interference
contour. After Jan. 1, 2013, licensees in the VHF and UHF bands must operate
on 12.5 kilohertz or narrower channels. As an alternative to these requirements,
licensees may employ a technology that satisfies the so-called data equivalency standard, requiring a minimum of 4,800 bits per second (bps) per 6.25
kilohertz of channel bandwidth.
Because reports indicate that as many as two-thirds of impacted licenses still
remain without narrowband emission designators, its expected that the number
of applications will continue to remain high as licensees file applications to narrowband existing private land mobile systems in advance of the 2013 narrowbanding transition deadline.
Application Nuts and Bolts
Licensees of affected stations that are transitioning to narrower bandwidths
must file a modification application to either add a narrowband emission designator or change the wideband emission designator to a narrowband emission
designator prior to Jan. 1, 2013.
Not all modification applications for authority to operate on narrowband technology are required to go through frequency coordination. In 2010, the FCC
10 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays
released an order amending several provisions of its rules to make it easier for
licensees to meet the narrowbanding deadline. For example, licensees are no
longer required to submit applications to frequency coordinators if the application seeks only to reduce emissions on the same center channel (such as move
from 25- to 12.5-kilohertz bandwidth) or delete an emission designator. Other
applications, including those seeking authority to migrate from analog to digital
equipment, must still be submitted to a frequency coordinator.
As the license is modified to include the narrowband emission designator, the
licensee has no further obligation to notify the commission that the station has
met the narrowbanding deadline. Wideband emission designators dont need to
be deleted from licenses prior to Jan. 1, 2013, to demonstrate compliance with
the narrowbanding deadline. Instead, absent information to the contrary, stations authorized to operate with both wideband and narrowband emissions prior
to Jan. 1, 2013, will initially be presumed to be operating only with narrowband
emissions after Jan. 1, 2013.
In addition, adding or changing an emission designator for an existing frequency doesnt trigger a new construction requirement, so the licensee will not
need to file a new construction notification if it only adds narrowband emission
designators to existing channels. For stations authorized to operate with a
bandwidth exceeding 12.5 kilohertz, the licensee will be required to certify that
it is operating narrowband-equivalent equipment that complies with the data
equivalency standard. This is necessary because it may not be apparent from a
licenses technical parameters whether a 25-kilohertz station is a noncompliant
wideband station or a compliant narrowband-equivalent station.
Because tens of thousands of these types of applications are being filed on
top of the FCCs normal workload in a relatively short period of time, application
processing times are expected to remain longer than usual through Jan. 1,
2013. Licensees should allow for extended application processing times when
planning new land mobile and microwave systems.
Conditional Temporary Authority
In light of this increased processing time for most applications, applicants
should be aware that the commissions rules permit many private land mobile
and microwave systems to begin operating under conditional temporary authority (CTA) while their applications are pending at the FCC. For example, applicants for new and modified land mobile licenses operating on frequencies
below 470 MHz are eligible to operate under CTA 10 business days after the
11 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays
application has been filed with the FCC if the following conditions are met:
1. The proposed transmitter site doesnt require Canadian coordination.
2. Authorization of the proposed station doesnt require a rule waiver.
3. The proposed station will not significantly affect the environment as defined
by 47 CFR 1.1307.
4. The proposed station or tower structure doesnt pose a hazard to aviation
safety and does not create any FCC antenna clearance issues.
5. The proposed station doesnt threaten any of the protected sites listed in 47
CFR 1.924 of the rules.
6. Frequency coordination has been secured or was not required.
Applicants for most new or modified microwave systems may begin operating
under CTA if similar conditions are met. The principal difference is that microwave applicants may begin operating under CTA immediately and are not required to wait 10 business days after the application is filed with the FCC. This
will provide relief to some, but not all, applicants.
Wesley K. Wright is an associate at Keller and Heckman. Wright joined Keller

and Heckman in 2006 and practices in the areas of telecommunications and
transactional law. His telecommunications practice focuses on assisting corporate clients and trade associations with various legal and regulatory matters
before the FCC, FAA, courts and state agencies. Contact Wright at
wright@khlaw.com.
FCC Active in
Narrowbanding Education
By Ralph A. Haller
The FCC has taken several steps to help assure that land
mobile licensees are aware of the Jan. 1, 2013, date for narrowbanding VHF and UHF systems. Beginning in 2013, all
stations must meet an efficiency standard of one voice path
per 12.5 kilohertz of bandwidth or 6.25 kilohertz per 4800
bits per second for digital systems. With the required transition date now
less than a year away, the FCC has stepped up its campaign to notify licensees of the deadline.
On Dec. 6, 2010, the FCC released a public notice that indicated the
critical transition dates for full conversion to narrowband technologies and
interim procedures for stations operating at 25-kilohertz bandwidth efficiency. The commission also has a Web page devoted to frequently asked
questions about the narrowband transition requirements. The FCC has an
excellent PowerPoint presentation that provides details of the transition
and lists several links to websites that provide additional resources to assist licensees. The presentation is available at www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/
public-safety-spectrum/Narrowbanding_Briefing.ppt.
One interesting point in the presentation is that the FCC will consider
applications for waivers of the date, but a high standard will have to be
met. That standard isnt actually defined. (Dont count on getting a waiver!)
A narrowband panel was also hosted by the FCC Jan. 26, 2011, and
was made available for viewing on the Web.
Narrowbanding requirements were explained. The major issues that
were identified were funding for the transition and getting the word out to
licensees. Even with all the FCCs efforts, it appears that many licensees
have no clue that narrowbanding is required.
Ralph A. Haller served as chief of the FCCs Private Radio Bureau

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

Answered by FCC Officials
FCC officials agreed to answer technical questions submitted by
MissionCritical Communications readers. Following are questions from
readers and answers from FCC technical and policy experts.
Question: I have a mining company client that uses 72 MHz for crane and
locomotive control. All of the narrowbanding articles I have seen say frequencies in the 70 512 MHz apply, yet I have never seen anything defining narrowband operations in the 72/75 MHz band. Please explain what happens in
this band.
Answer: The narrowbanding resulting from the refarming proceeding only
pertains to the private land mobile bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz.
There is no requirement to narrowband systems operating in the 72 76
MHz band.
Question: The same mining company has mining operations in Canada.
Do we know if Canada is going through this? Timeline? Can they move their
U.S. radios to their Canadian operation if they have been type accepted by
Canada?
Answer: I received the following information from Industry Canada:
The Canadian Redeployment Plan does not have a hard transition date like
the United States. If operations are located in a congested zone and a wideband system is blocking a more efficient operation, then Industry Canada
may narrowband the system. Notwithstanding the lack of a hard transition
date, congestion in urban areas generally requires new systems, especially
near the border regions, to be narrowband. Significant justification is needed
for new systems in this band to obtain authorization for wideband systems.
Specifically, with respect to the mining company in question, assuming that
the mining company isnt in a congested area, it can move its radios to
Canada if they are type accepted and the company may never have to
narrowband.
Question: Are General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licensees in the
Part 95 service required to narrowband their equipment? When?
Answer: The GMRS, regulated

under 47 CFR Part 95, isnt required to transition to narrowband.
The narrowbanding effort only affects private land mobile radios
regulated under 47 CFR Part 90.
However, the commission recently
released a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (WT Docket
No. 10-119) in which it proposes to implement 12.5-kilohertz narrowbanding in the GMRS. (See paragraphs 36 37 of the referenced NPRM.) The
NPRM asks questions regarding application of narrowbanding requirements and what would be an appropriate transition period.
Question: Is it permissible for users to program radios sold after Jan. 1,
2011, with previous versions of programming software and enable 25kilohertz operations?
Answer: Radios manufactured and/or imported prior to Jan. 1, 2011,
may be sold and programmed or reprogrammed to enable the 25-kilohertz
mode of operation after that date. However, it is not permissible to manufacture and/or import radios after Jan. 1, 2011, that are capable of being
programmed or reprogrammed by the user to enable 25-kilohertz operation, because they would be considered to be 25-kilohertz-capable radios
even if they are not actually programmed for 25-kilohertz operation when
they are delivered to the end user.
Question: Will any license, containing frequencies that are affected, that
has only wideband emissions be automatically canceled after Jan. 1, 2013?
Answer: No. The rules permit narrowband equivalent (such as two or
four slots in a 25-kilohertz channel, or 4,800 bits per second per 6.25-kilohertz for data) after Jan. 1, 2013. Therefore, licenses that have only wideband emissions will still be valid for such operations.
Question: Do systems now operating as wideband digital networks
(20K0F3D) qualify to remain wideband through Jan. 1, 2013, by meeting the
efficiency standard if operating at 19.2 kilobits per second (kbps)? And if so,
are any notifications to the FCC or other license modifications required?
Photo courtesy Kenwood
15 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials
Answer: After Jan. 1, 2013, licensees may operate with an authorized

bandwidth exceeding 11.25-kilohertz only if they operate with equivalent efficiency (such as two or four slots in a 25-kilohertz channel for voice or
4,800 bits per second per 6.25-kilohertz for data).
Question: Is it legal to continue using legacy equipment designed for 25kilohertz operation after Jan. 1, 2013, by adjusting its modulation to meet the
12.5-kilohertz requirements of narrowband emissions?
Answer: No. To be compliant with the commissions rules, the radio must
be specifically certificated for narrowband use under Part 90.
Question: Is it legal to modify a wideband stand-alone receiver (VHF high
band) to narrowband by installing new crystal filters in the intermediate frequency (IF) section? This modification has been accomplished on a test receiver in our shop, and because the radio isnt a transmitter, none of the
parameters under Part 90 are applicable. We gained about 2 dBm signal to
noise and distortion (SINAD) following the modification.
Answer: The authorization requirements for receivers are in Section
15.101 unintentional radiators. They apply to receivers that tune within
the range of 30 960 MHz and to CB receivers and radar detectors. The
receiver in question is described as VHF high band and would fall within
this frequency range, so its subject to authorization under Part 15. If its a
scanning receiver, it requires certification. If not, it would fall under the category of all other receivers subject to Part 15 and would require authorization under either certification or declaration of conformity (DoC).
When equipment is modified by a party other than the original grantee or
responsible party, the person performing the modifications becomes the new
responsible party. Section 2.909 addresses this for both certified equipment
(paragraph a) and equipment authorized under DoC (paragraph c). Section
2.1073(d) states that equipment authorized under DoC shall be retested for
compliance if any modifications are made by the responsible party that could
adversely affect the emanation characteristics of the equipment. DoC testing
must be done at an accredited laboratory per Section 2.948(a)(3).
Section 2.1043 permits certain changes to be made to certified equipment.
However, except for changes to software-defined radio (SDR) software, only
the grantee of certification can make these. See Section 2.1043(b)(4). If another party makes changes, then a new certification would be required.
Please note that Section 15.1 prohibits the operation of intentional or unintentional radiators that dont comply with the administrative and technical requirements of Part 15, including the equipment authorization requirement.
Question: What is the FCCs proposal for handling 25-kilohertz equipment
shipments for one-way paging application scenarios, which are exempt from
the narrowbanding rules [90.203(j)(7)]?
Answer: 90.203(j)(7) constitutes an exception from the general prohibition
in 90.203(j)(10). Transmitters designed only for one-way paging operations
may still be manufactured and imported after Jan. 1, 2011. There is a request
pending for a stay of the 2011 deadlines. Action on that request would obviously change or moot some rules.
Question: Are manufacturers allowed to build and ship 25-kilohertz equipment within the United States as long as the customer/ship destination is a
non-FCC licensee (non-U.S. international customers, U.S. federal, etc.)? If
so, are there any detailed labeling or order processing expectations associated with this allowance?
Answer: No, there is no exception in the rules for equipment intended for
export. The rules contain no special labeling requirement for 25-kilohertz
equipment intended for export. But equipment manufactured solely for export
is exempt pursuant to Section 2.807 of the rules and Section 302(c) of the
Communications Act. Indeed, the commission specifically stated in the narrowbanding proceeding that the deadline didnt apply to equipment intended for
export. See implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications
Act of 1934 as amended, report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking, WT Docket No. 99-87, 15 FCC Rcd 22709, 22773 n.394 (2000).
Question: Will 150 160 and 450 460 itinerant frequencies also be subject to 12.5-kilohertz requirements?
Answer: The various itinerant frequencies are subject to varying requirements. Regarding the VHF high band, some of the itinerant frequencies
often previously referred to as the color dot channels were moved from
Part 90 to the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS) under Part 95 (see WT
Docket No. 98-182 and 47 CFR Part 95, Subpart J and 47 CFR 95.632) and
some remained in Part 90. Of those itinerant frequencies that remained in
Part 90, most were created as narrowband channels in the refarming
proceeding and may only be assigned for narrowband use. 151.640 MHz is
limited to 6.25-kilohertz operations, and 151.5125, 151.700, 151.760,
154.5275 and 158.4075 MHz are limited to 12.5-kilohertz operations. The remaining two VHF high band itinerant channels 151.505 and 158.400 MHz
are subject to the narrowbanding rules, and stations must narrowband by
Jan. 1, 2013.
The rest of the VHF high band itinerant channels were moved to the
MURS. Under those rules (see 47 CFR 95.632), 151.820, 151.880 and
151.940 MHz are authorized for 12.5-kilohertz channels, and 154.570
and 154.600 MHz are authorized for 25-kilohertz channels. However,
notwithstanding those requirements, rule section 95.1317 provides for grandfathered operation of previously granted Part 90 licenses on those frequencies. The rule states that [s]tations that were licensed under Part 90 of the
commissions rules to operate on MURS frequencies as of Nov. 13, 2000, are
granted a license by rule that authorizes continued operations under the
terms of such nullified Part 90 authorizations, including any rule waivers.
Therefore, stations operating on 25-kilohertz MURS channels prior to Nov.
13, 2000, may continue wideband operation, and all stations may operate
using 25-kilohertz channels on 154.570 and 154.600 MHz.
The UHF itinerant channels werent moved to the MURS and are subject to
the Jan. 1, 2013, narrowbanding deadline. These channels are: 451.800,
456.800, 457.500, 464.500, 469.500 and 469.550 MHz. All other UHF itinerant channels were created as narrowband channels in the refarming proceeding and have always been subject to narrowband use. 451.80625, 451.81875,
456.80625 and 456.81875 MHz are limited to 6.25-kilohertz operations, and
451.8125 and 456.8125 MHz are limited to 12.5-kilohertz operations.
Question: Are the VHF low band frequencies (30 50 MHz) affected by
narrowbanding? Does the FCC have future plans for these frequencies or
will they be left as is?
Answer: The VHF low band isnt subject to the narrowbanding rules, and
the commission has no current plans to change the rules for these channels.
If the FCC were to consider changes for these channels, it would be done
through a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
Question: Are the 453.xxx frequencies subject to narrowbanding by the
Jan. 1, 2013, deadline?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Can an end user re-certify MastrII/Micor transmitters for
narrowband? Can I do the recertification using field grade service monitors,
or will I need the services of an FCC-certified lab?
I want to modify several VHF MSF5000 base stations and repeaters using
the Communications Specialists 12.5-kilohertz kits. What do I need to do to
comply with the FCC regulations? What is the procedure that I need to follow
to recertify my equipment? Do I have to send the equipment to the FCC?
Answer: If a kit is used to modify a radio to bring it into compliance with
the narrowband rules, the radio must be recertified to show compliance with
those rules. Regardless of who actually modifies the radio and the equipment
used to do so, the party that submits the new application for equipment approval becomes the responsible party for that radio. That party would be required to place the new FCC ID label on the device. If this party is also a
distributor or a manufacturer, the party could modify the same radios in a
similar manner and place the new FCC ID label on the modified radio. If a different party were to use the same kit to modify a radio, they would need to
submit that modified radio for a new certification and become the responsible
party for those modified radios.
For guidance on how to apply for an FCC equipment authorization, refer to
guidance at www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ea_app_info.html. The modified devices
need to be certified.
Question: The FCC, in public notice DA 09-2589, stated that under certain circumstances previously certified multimode equipment can be manufactured or imported after Jan. 1, 2011. Specifically, the public notice stated
that the equipment certification for previously certified multimode equipment containing a wideband 25-kilohertz mode will continue to be valid,
and such equipment may continue to be manufactured and imported, only
if the modes of operation are enabled primarily through software rather
than firmware or hardware, and users arent provided with the programming software necessary to activate the wideband 25-kilohertz mode.
Based on this, please clarify the following.
Are manufacturers required to modify radios so that previous versions of programming software with 25-kilohertz capability cant be used? This assumes
the previous version of programming software is replaced by a new version with
no 25-kilohertz capability and the previous version is no longer sold.

Answer: Manufacturers must ensure that equipment manufactured or imported after the transition date has the 25-kilohertz capability disabled. If this
is done through programming software, then the appropriate software must
be modified to comply with this requirement, and the previous version of the
software must be updated or replaced.
Question: Will tightening the frequency stability to below 2.5 parts per million (PPM) make a system compliant?
Answer: No. To be compliant with the FCCs rules, the radio must be
specifically certificated for narrowband use under Part 90.
Additionally, the FCC Knowledge Database (KDB) details the subject of
permissive changes as it relates to Part 90 refarming. The KDB page is available at: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm
?id=20292&switch=P
Question (from FCC KDB): How will new applications and permissive
change applications be handled for wideband and narrowband equipment in
the Part 90 re-farming bands?
Answer (from FCC KDB): In WT Docket 99-87, FCC 03-34, the commission adopted new frequency bands for transmitters under Part 90 of the FCC
rules. Under the new rules, equipment in the Part 90 re-farming frequency
bands 150 174 and 421 512 MHz will no longer be issued with a 25kilohertz emission designator. The new rules prohibit Equipment authorization
of devices with 25-kilohertz channel spacing after Dec. 31, 2004.
The current policy to address this timeline is:
New Grants: Applications for new equipment authorization received
before Jan. 1, 2005, will be granted with a wideband (25-kilohertz) emission
designator as long as the equipment also has a narrowband (12.5- and/or
6.25-kilohertz) emission designator. Applications for new equipment authorization received after Dec. 31, 2004, will not be granted with a wideband
emission designator.
Permissive Changes: A class I permissive change may not be used to
add a narrowband emission designator to a wideband device. Only the FCC
or a TCB (within 30 days of grant) may modify the text on a grant, and for a
class I permissive change, no filing is submitted. Applications for a class II
permissive change received before Jan. 1, 2005, may be submitted for any
modification that meets the definition of a permissive change. The wideband
channel will be listed on the grant. A class II permissive change may be submitted to add a narrowband emission designator to a wideband grant if no
hardware changes are made to the device. If hardware changes are made to
the device, a new FCC ID will be required. When a class II permissive
change is submitted to add a narrowband emission designator, only the permissive change grant will show the narrowband emission designator. The
original grant will not be modified to show the new narrowband emission designator. Applications for class II permissive changes for wideband-only equipment will not be accepted after Jan. 1, 2005. Applications for class II
permissive changes for multimode equipment received after Dec. 31, 2004,
will not be granted with a wideband emission designator. A class II permissive change may be submitted to add a narrowband emission designator to a
wideband grant if no hardware changes are made to the device. If hardware
changes are made to the device, a new FCC ID will be required. If a device
that was previously granted with wideband and narrowband emission designators is submitted for a permissive change with modifications unrelated to
the emission designators, the permissive change will be granted without the
wideband emission designator. Applications for devices with only narrowband
emission designators will be processed as they currently are now.
Permissive Change Example: Equipment is approved for 25-/12.5kilohertz operation prior to Jan. 1, 2005. After Jan. 1, 2005, a component unrelated to the power output or frequency determining circuitry becomes unavailable and must be replaced with a similar component. The change meets
the 2.1043 definition of a permissive change and is tested to determine if a
class I or class II permissive change is appropriate. If the test results show a
class I change is acceptable, then the process is complete, and the new device may be marketed. If the test results show a class II permissive change is
required, an application is then submitted to the FCC or a TCB. For applications received after Jan. 1, 2005, the permissive change grant will not be issued because the original was with both 25- and 12.5-kilohertz emissions,
but only with the 12.5-kilohertz emission. When a permissive change is filed
for 25-/12.5-kilohertz equipment, the FCC will not require the device to show
compliance with the 6.25-kilohertz requirements that become effective Jan.
1, 2005, per 90.203(j)(5).
Software Change to Remove Emission: When a software change is
made to a device to remove an approved operating mode/emission designator, no permissive change is required unless the device was approved as a
software-defined radio (SDR). If the device was approved as an SDR, a class
III permissive change must be filed with the commission. TCBs cannot approve SDRs yet.
Verify Wireless Coverage.

Take the guess-work out
of your narrowband migration.
he narrowband transition is expected
With STI Field Test 7 you can benchmark
to result in changes to RF
your current wireless systems
coverage and signal quality in
signal coverage and quality, and
larger communications systems
conrm the coverage and quality
regardless of whether or not you
of your narrowband signal, taking
are using the narrowband
the guess-work out of your
initiative to migrate your system
narrowband migration.
to a digital technology.
Click here to download your copy of, A Practical Guide to Narrowbanding, produced by
The Department of Homeland Securitys Ofce of Emergency Communications, and other resources.
877-848-8500 toll-free
www.surveytech.com
local: 503-848-8500 fax: 503-848-8534
email: marketing@surveytech.com
20105a
Section 2:
Operations and Procedures
Coordination is Critical, John Johnson ....................................................................25
7 Narrowbanding Tips, Leonard Koehnen ...............................................................29
Fallacies and Facts, Leonard Koehnen ...................................................................34
Narrowbanding Prep, Joe Blaschka Jr ....................................................................36
Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?, Klaus Bender ...............................................41
7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance, Nick Ruark ...............................................47
Sponsored by
25 I Section 2: Operations and Procedures
Coordination is Critical
As many readers know, the last phase of the
FCCs narrowbanding mandate will occur Jan. 1,
2013, only one budget cycle away. To meet the
deadline, many factors, including financial support, buy-in from local elected officials, the impact to your own agency and coordination, must
be considered. The last factor is the most important. To transition to narrowband, plan and prepare now; however, to be successful in
narrowbanding, coordinate and plan with the following groups: your agency, other agencies in
your jurisdiction, your neighbors and vendors.
Your Agency
The first area of coordination should be within your agency or department.
Its essential that daily users are able to communicate with each other. To ensure a smooth transition to narrowband, first notify agency leadership of the
narrowbanding mandate. Explicitly state the impact of what will happen if the
agency opts not to transition. Agencies that dont meet the deadline face loss
of communications capabilities or fines.
Next, coordinate with all radio users to create an inventory of resources and
radio equipment. Obtaining an accurate inventory in a timely manner will take
cooperation, coordination and participation from all who possess radio equipment. Perhaps this could be accomplished during a shift change or on days
off. Therefore, staff availability and overtime costs should be kept in mind
when coordinating this phase. During the inventory, collect information about
the manufacturer, model and serial number of all radio equipment. Use the inventory to determine which radios need to be replaced or reprogrammed.
After completing the inventory, work with agency leaders to develop a narrowbanding transition plan. The plan should prioritize the order in which
equipment is narrowbanded. Consider the infrastructure, repeaters, base
Photo courtesy DHS
By John Johnson
26 I Coordination is Critical
stations, control stations, mobile radios and handheld radios when creating
the prioritized list. Consider resources both personnel and funding required to complete the transition and plan accordingly.
In addition to coordinating inventory, the FCC requires that agencies
possess several factors on their FCC license to use narrowband frequencies,
including:
The narrowband emission (11K)
Tower heights
Transmitter effective radiated power (ERP)
Control point/point of contacts (POCs)
If any of this information is missing, you will need to modify your FCC license. This is an opportune time to review your FCC license and update any
outdated or missing information. Modifying an FCC license takes time and
funding that should be accounted for during planning stages. To avoid cancellations of your license or fines, coordinate your license modification and
plan accordingly when preparing a narrowbanding budget.
Other Agencies in Your Jurisdiction
Coordination with other departments and agencies in your jurisdiction is
important. If these groups transition to narrowband and you dont, you will no
longer be able to communicate with them. To avoid this fate and the ensuing
ripple effect, prior to narrowbanding, identify the departments and agencies
your emergency responders need to communicate with. A ripple effect is
caused when an agency narrowbands but other agencies continue to operate on wideband spectrum; as a result, the agencies are unable to communicate with one another. Identify the narrowbanding POCs within each of these
departments and agencies and establish relationships. Work with these
POCs to plan for narrowbanding.
Neighbors
Coordination with neighbors is similar to coordination within your jurisdiction, but the impact area is larger. In this case, neighbors include departments and agencies situated in your region, beyond your jurisdiction. Key
steps include identifying the neighboring agencies your agency needs to
communicate with including tribal agencies in the region identifying the
narrowbanding POCs within each of these agencies and establishing
relationships. You may consider establishing a short-term working group with

these individuals. The working group would meet on a regular basis to discuss and plan narrowbanding efforts within the region.
Regardless of the approach you take, when planning and preparing with
neighbors, consider the following questions:
Are your neighbor agencies mandated to complete the narrowbanding
transition by local officials or department executives or is it considered voluntary compliance?
Does their city or county use a VHF/UHF cross-band, mutual-aid
system?
When and how do you ensure that departments using your agencys frequency have narrowbanded?
How will neighboring agencies fund the narrowbanding transition?
Does the region use regional mutual-aid systems, statewide channels,
or national fire and law enforcement channels? Do these need to be narrowbanded?
The ripple effect discussed earlier becomes larger if regional, tribal,
statewide or national mutual-aid channels arent considered during planning stages. For example, in the state of Tennessee, significant coordination is required to ensure the tristate fire mutual-aid channel is minimally
impacted. The channel is used by fire departments in and around the
Chattanooga area, as well as agencies in Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. Tennessee has two statewide mutual-aid repeaters, one VHF and
one UHF, with many locations cross-banded as well as some statewide
tactical channels. There is a Tennessee EMS plan that mandates EMS
units have specific channels in the ambulances such as 155.205, 155.295
and 155.340. In Tennessee, 155.340 is the channel used for an ambulance
to coordinate with hospitals emergency rooms. But 155.340 is designated
as a national mutual-aid channel now. National EMS medical channels,
national fire mutual-aid channels and the national law-enforcement channel should be kept in mind as well, because these channels are used by
volunteers, local and state agencies in addition to federal agencies and
will need additional coordination.
Vendors
Whether you use a commercial radio vendor or have your own departmental
radio shop, radio technicians must be involved in the narrowbanding planning

process. The earlier you coordinate your timeline with vendors, the better.
Many commercial radio shops may only have one technician and a few installers. They are contending with multiple public-safety customers, as well
as business and industrial customers that need to narrowband. Users will
compete for their services during a short timeframe. Failure to coordinate
with your technician could cause a major delay in meeting the deadline.
Disposal of Wideband Equipment
Once the narrowband transition is complete, your agency must determine
how to dispose of wideband-only equipment. The best option is to coordinate
with surplus property representatives to plan for the disposal and sale of
equipment. However, before disposing of equipment, ensure that the frequencies and channel elements have been removed. Use caution when
reselling equipment to other licensees. Wideband-only equipment should
never be resold to a buyer that will put it back in service.
To be successful in the narrowband process, coordination on many levels
must be accomplished. Working with the other departments and agencies
and building relationships will be beneficial down the road, foster interoperability and allow for a more successful response. On Dec. 31, 2012, I plan to
enjoy ringing in the new year with family and friends instead of programming
or installing radios.
John Johnson is a radio system analyst for the Tennessee Emergency

Management Agency (TEMA), one of the three major divisions of the military
department. Johnson has been with TEMA since 1984 and serves as the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International
local frequency advisor for the state of Tennessee, chairman of the 800 MHz
National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC), the 700
MHz regional planning committee and the statewide interoperability committee. Johnson also serves on the Safecom narrowbanding working group
and is an editorial advisor for MissionCritical Communications. Email
comments to jjohnson@tnema.org.
7 Narrowbanding Tips
By Leonard Koehnen
We are about to enter the next curve in the road of spectrum refarming.
This isnt the first time narrowbanding has happened. When I started on the
bench in the early 1960s, we were just beginning to convert radios from very
wide channels to the narrow channels we know now. The difference was that
then the manufacturers had kits to convert some of the newer radios, and the
conversion applied to the 30 50 MHz band as well. I modified many radios
and threw more with modulation and receiver bandwidth that couldnt legally
be reduced from 10 to 5 kilohertz in the dumpster. I recall the transition
wasnt as forgiving, and one large Midwest police department received three
years of waivers from the FCC for economic reasons.
This time the FCC gave us about 18 years of notice and a phased schedule. If businesses and governmental entities were attentive to their fleets, the
conversion would be just a visit from the radio technicians, a few key clicks
on their computer for each radio, and a complete conversion. Unfortunately,
inattentiveness to the fleet and economic reasons now have led some to
near panic.
1. Be Prepared
During 2007 2008, I narrowbanded a multichannel VHF radio system for
Door County, Wis. Most of the countys fixed station inventory included Mastr
IIIs purchased during 1998 2004. Most of the user radio fleet was also purchased during the same period. I was concerned about the early Mastr III
stations. Ericsson phased in narrowbanding capability in early 1998, but
there wasnt a clear demarcation date. As older wideband modules were
drawn from inventory, capable modules were built into stations. Therefore,
you can have a first-quarter 1998 Mastr III station with no, partial and full capability. Partial capability means it cant be narrowbanded. All the modules
must be narrowband capable. We tested some of the 1998 Mastr III stations
and found the sample to be capable of being narrowbanded. We also tested
a sample of the early Kenwood 90 series mobiles and found them capable
as well. Some 90 series Kenwood portables required software upgrades, but
30 I 7 Narrowbanding Tips
in the end, they appeared ready.

Once you start narrowbanding a system, there is no turning back. You are
committed. Therefore, its important to be ready, have assurances the conversion will be successful, have the users of the fleet ready and then start. We
had some unexpected surprises during the process. Radios with anticipated
problems had no problems, and the ones with high expectations of success
had some surprises. One 90 series Kenwood mobile in the mid-serial number range wouldnt narrowband. Fortunately, the user was a quiet talker and
in effect, self narrowbanded his radio. However, his radio will need to be replaced before 2013. Some of the new inexpensive radios had poor compandering. The radio worked better with the compandering turned off.
One big surprise was from users who self narrowbanded. A user who talks
quietly either by poor radio use habits or a soft voice can effectively
narrowband a radio. A normal wideband radio operator should modulate at
least 4 kilohertz. Quiet talkers modulate in the 2-kilohertz range. When you
narrowband a radio, normal voice drops to 2 kilohertz, but the quiet talkers
drop to 1 kilohertz and essentially cant be heard. This is not FCC approved, but before 2013, if a radio will not narrowband, put the radio in a soft
talkers vehicle, and it will buy you time. You still need to replace that radio by
2013. You also need to train the quiet talker to talk louder or use the radio
properly.
2. Paging Inconsistencies
Wideband fixed stations have problems modulating paging tones below
350 hertz. A technician must adjust the higher paging tones to modulate a
wideband transmitter to two-thirds system modulation or about 3.5 kilohertz. When you do that, the paging tones below 350 hertz cant modulate at
that level. Some barely modulate at 2 kilohertz because of effects of the
pre-emphasis circuitry in the radio. If you set the level for the lower tones, the
higher tones go into distortion. Older reach formats will have issues with
tones above 2 kilohertz. The very low and very high tones modulate at less
than the recommended rate and become unreliable when you narrowband.
There are also inconsistencies in the FCC narrowbanding requirements for
paging channels. Generally, if the paging channel is listed in FCC Rule Part
90 as a paging channel, it doesnt have to be narrowbanded. This doesnt
necessarily mean the channel you use for paging you have to refer to the
FCC rules. This affects fire paging systems, most of which are categorized
as base-mobile channels by the FCC and not paging.

One exception to the paging exemption is 163.250 MHz, a hospital paging
channel. Because this was originally a federal channel, federal narrowbanding rules apply. In effect, the channel is on loan from the federal pool to the
public-safety pool, and its original federal rules apply. The other hospitalpaging channel, 152.0075 MHz, is exempt from narrowbanding requirements. The EMS frequencies of 150.775 and 150.790 MHz are also federally
loaned frequencies. They have to be narrowbanded, but there doesnt seem
to be any tertiary channels listed within Part 90 resulting from narrowbanding. My guess is the federal pool has retained them.
3. Tertiary Channels
Just because a radio can narrowband doesnt mean it can operate on a
new channel created by the narrowbanding process. Radios synthesize the
radio channel from a master crystal oscillator. An example might be an electronic piano. The sound frequency of the bottom key and the spacing between keys is known by the synthesizer. From there, the mathematics within
the synthesizer can calculate the frequency of all other keys. Mobile radio
synthesis works the same way.
Many radios manufactured before 2004 dont have the mathematics to calculate the new tertiary frequencies. Therefore, 153.770 MHz will narrowband
in all narrowband-capable radios, but 153.7775 MHz may not even be programmable. If you are adding new frequencies to your system, attempt to
program these frequencies before you narrowband the system. Some manufacturers have software upgrades to modify the mathematical formula in the
synthesizer. This is generally a VHF problem.
4. Loss of Range
If you convert your radio system from wideband analog to narrowband
analog, the laws of physics report you will lose range. Some radio systems
have enough headroom to tolerate this, while others dont. However, if you
have a marginal area, it will only become worse. Because the loss of range is
nonlinear, narrowbanding will have a greater effect on a system that only produces 90 percent service area coverage than one with 95 percent service
area coverage. If you convert to a digital voice format such as Project 25
(P25), you will gain this loss back plus some gain because of the healing effects of digital signal processing (DSP).
5. Interoperability Coordination
If you operate a public-safety radio system, interoperability with your
neighbors is important. To keep from reprogramming your fleet repeatedly as
each of your neighbors converts on different schedules, meet with them and
set a common timeline of conversion. Otherwise, you could be reprogramming repeatedly as each neighbor converts its radio system. At $40 $50
per radio, this becomes expensive.
If you need to replace your fleet, buy radios with 128 channels or more.
Then you can have a mode for County A wideband and County A narrowband, County B wideband and County B narrowband, etc. Then in 2013, you
can reprogram your fleet once more to take out all of the wideband modes.
6. Fallacies, Lies and Misinterpretations
There are many people spreading misinformation regarding narrowbanding. The FCC needs to begin a serious public question and answer with the
industry on unique situations so everybody is informed from a legal source.
There are instances where you can remain wideband after 2013. Some of
them are:
If you can operate with four voice subchannels on a wide channel for
example, 4:1 channel efficiency;
If you can demonstrate you are transmitting a digital signal equal to or
faster than 19.2 kilobits per second (kbps);
If you lease (or own) your radio channel from a band manager of an
FCC Part 22 radio frequency pool. These are the old paging and mobile telephone channels. Beware, you may not be able to purchase wideband radios
in the future to operate on Part 22 spectrum; and
Ham operators, operating under FCC Rule Part 97 are exempt from narrowbanding. If you have some good wideband radios, offer them to your Amateur Radio Disaster Services (ARES) or Radio Amateur Civil Emergency
Services (RACES) group, and your old radios can continue to help you.
7. The 2011 Budget
What happens when your fleet is almost ready to narrowband, but you
have no 2010 funds left in your budget? The FCC gave you a reprieve June
30, when it changed its rules for manufacturers. Licensees now have budget
years 2011 and 2012 to purchase wideband-capable radios.
Narrowbanding is at our doorstep. Now is the time to plan, schedule and
test your questionable radios. Schedule a meeting with your radio service
agency to review your status. Schedule a meeting with your neighbors to coordinate conversion dates.
Leonard Koehnen, PE, is a consulting engineer from St. Paul, Minn. He is a

member of the MissionCritical Communications editorial advisory board. In
2011, he celebrated 50 years of work in the electronic communications industry. E-mail comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
Fallacies and Facts

By Leonard Koehnen
There is a great deal of misinformation throughout the industry regarding
narrowbanding, and following is a list of fallacies and facts:
Fallacy: The FCC will relent in the end because of the economy and give
public safety an extension.
Fact: The FCC published a report in January 2010, stating it will not relent.
Be prepared for no reprieve. Even if there is, the adjacent narrowband channels are being assigned, and unless you narrowband, you will experience interference from them.
Fallacy: Everybody must narrowband again in 2017 so you shouldnt
spend a lot of money now.
Fact: There is a 2017 rule for 700 MHz users to migrate to 6.25-channel
equivalency but not anybody else.
Fallacy: You must go to Project 25 (P25) digital voice.
Fact: By Jan. 1, 2013, the maximum you must transmit is 12.5-kilohertz
channel analog voice. You can employ P25 on that channel if you want.
Fallacy: You must scrap your system and migrate to a statewide trunked
system.
Fact: There is no such requirement.
Fallacy: You must go to 700 or 800 MHz.
Fact: There is no such requirement.
Fallacy: If you join the state network, your fire-paging channel does not
have to be narrowbanded.
Fact: There is no such privilege afforded to the states.
35 I Narrowbanding Fallacies and Facts
Fallacy: We are so far out in a rural area, the FCC will never know we
havent narrowbanded.
Fact: You may be in the rural area but your signals can skip 100 200
miles in the spring and fall. If you interfere with a legally operating narrowband system, that user can file a complaint, and the FCC may take action
against you.
Fallacy: Im going to use my old wideband radios for temporary or close-in
work. Maybe I will take them to my hunting or lake cabin.
Fact: Same as above.
Fallacy: The radio shop will just add a third-party aftermarket device to
narrowband my wideband-only radios.
Fact: The FCC recently told MissionCritical Communications that this isnt
permitted. The radio or kit to narrowband a radio must be designed by the
radios manufacturer and type accepted with the radio to operate in the narrowband mode (See Frequently Asked Questions, Page 14).
Fallacy: The radio shop has played with our radios, and by tweaking them,
they can make them operate narrowband.
Fact: This isnt permitted. The FCC has ruled that the radio must be designed and type accepted by the original manufacturer to be narrowbanded
or it cant be used after Jan. 1, 2013.
Narrowbanding Prep
The unstoppable countdown toward the end of wideband communications continues. Each second
that goes by reduces the time
available for user awareness, planning, budgeting and implementing
the changes that will result Jan. 1,
2013. Time is running out to complete the tasks that may be required to
make the transition without loss of service or operating in crisis mode.
For more than four decades, two-way FM LMRs used a standard operating
bandwidth of 20 kilohertz with a transmitter deviation of 5 kilohertz. FCC rulings during the past 10 years or so have aimed to reduce the standard operating bandwidth first to 12.5 kilohertz with a deviation of 2.5 kilohertz and
ultimately to a 6.25-kilohertz bandwidth. In the late 1990s, the FCC required
that any new type of accepted equipment be capable of 12.5-kilohertz operation. This change has resulted in a significant quantity of narrowbandcapable equipment currently being in service.
FCC officials thought that licensees would voluntarily move to narrowband
technology, and by now, everybody would be operating in narrowband channels. In 2003, to speed the process, the FCC issued new rules requiring all
users in the VHF and UHF bands to convert to narrowband operation by Jan.
1, 2013. To make sure there was equipment in place to meet the deadline,
the commission set Jan. 1, 2011, as the last date equipment capable of
wideband operation could be manufactured or imported in the United States.
After Jan. 1, 2011, any new radio purchased could very well not operate
properly with the existing wideband system. Any licensee still using low-band
(30 50 MHz) or 800 MHz can breathe a sigh of relief, because those bands
are exempt from being narrowbanded.
Implementation
Several aspects of making the transition to narrowband should be
By Joe Blaschka Jr.
37 I Narrowbanding Prep
considered: awareness, financial, operational, equipment and transition

planning.
1. Awareness. Many radio users are unaware of the upcoming narrowband transition. There still is time to act and begin the planning process, but
time is rapidly ticking away given planning and budget cycles. Everyone
should be talking about this issue at board meetings, fire and police chief
gatherings, city staff meetings, company staff meetings and EMS councils,
and vendors should advise their customers of this change.
This awareness needs to occur on a state- and regionwide basis as well.
For example, many emergency medical systems operate with the expectation that medical teams and vehicles can be used statewide. This means virtually every hospital, each with individual budgeting processes and technical
capabilities, needs to be included in the narrowband transition planning.
Awareness also includes the personnel and financial resources required to
make the narrowband transition. If other projects are being contemplated
during this same timeframe, there may not be adequate resources to accomplish all tasks. If planning is done across multiple agencies, each agency
needs to allocate resources to narrowbanding tasks.
2. Financial. The time to plan and budget anything for 2010 is probably
gone for many government agencies given that preliminary budgets need to
be submitted in the summer and fall of 2009. Because narrowbanding must
be completed by Jan. 1, 2013, implementation must occur during 2012 or
earlier only two budget cycles away. The budgeting and planning process
has to start no later than next year if the compliance dates are to be met.
Unlike 800 MHz rebanding, there is no Nextel equivalent to pay for this
transition. There may be some money through various grant processes for interoperable communications. However, federal grants are competitive, and
there is no guarantee an individual licensee will be successful in obtaining
grant funding. Start now to find funding.
3. Operational. Operations may be affected by reduced coverage. This will
depend on each situation, and narrowband and wideband radios will not interoperate together well. Coverage is the first issue to evaluate. There could
be a significant reduction in coverage after narrowbanding, requiring the addition of voting receivers or additional transmitter sites depending on each
specific case.
The other aspect is that the narrow deviation and overall reduction in FM
signal-to-noise ratio make a system less tolerant to low audio from users
radios. This problem is exacerbated by the use of speaker-mics resulting in

low talk-in volume. The use of audio processors to assist in boosting the
audio levels has worked well in some installations.
4. Equipment. The amount of old equipment still in service is amazing
not just equipment from the 1990s, but Motorola Mocom 70s and Micors, GE
Mastr IIs and more. In many cases, this equipment has been relegated to
third-tier apparatus, backup use, volunteer search and rescue groups, and
similar uses. However, there is also a considerable quantity of front-line
equipment from the early- to mid-1990s still in service that isnt narrowband
compatible. Most equipment purchased after 1998 will have narrowband capability on the existing channels, but may not work on the new narrowband
channels. In most cases, that shouldnt be a problem, because most of the
transitions are occurring on existing channels.
Inventory all equipment including base stations and backup and reserve
equipment, along with model, serial number and number of channels each
unit is capable of. Determine the wide/narrowband capability of each unit. If
the equipment is only capable of wideband operation, list it as needing replacement. When replacing old equipment with new narrowband equipment,
check specifications when operating in the narrowband mode carefully. Radios that had excellent specifications when in wideband mode may have only
average specifications when operating in narrowband mode. Adjacent channel protection may not be as good as before.
The need to operate in both wideband and narrowband modes during a
transition could result in requiring twice the number of channels in radios.
This could force even narrowband-capable radios to be replaced, because
they will not have the capacity to support both modes during the transition.
Most fire paging transmitters must be converted to narrowband operation.
This will affect hundreds if not thousands of fire alerting pagers in an area. In
some places, Plectron and Motorola fire alerting receivers are still in use; its
doubtful those will continue to work after the conversion to narrowband.
There is quite a debate about the need to convert to digital as part of the
narrowbanding process. There is no FCC requirement to convert existing
wideband systems to digital operation as part of this stage of narrowbanding.
There are many analog narrowband systems in operation, and many if not
all, existing systems could be converted to narrowband without transitioning
to digital systems. While digital technology may offer range similar to wideband operation, in many cases, the complexity and cost of converting to
digital far outweighs the coverage improvements.

5. Transition Planning. Many small systems can be converted in a day,
possibly on the weekend, resulting in a simple and easy conversion. But
most systems will require detailed and extensive transition planning to maintain proper operation. In addition, the wider issue of local and regional interoperability needs to be considered. The transition will require significant
financial and personnel resources. Depending on a licensees in-house capabilities, consultants or vendors may be needed to assist with the planning
and engineering.
Interoperability. Most government systems and some commercial systems need to interoperate with other agencies or entities. In addition, many
large fleets will take many days, weeks or even months to become narrowband ready. During the transition time, the ability to intercommunicate between wideband and narrowband units will be required. In most cases, this
means programming channels in both the wideband and narrowband modes
until the transition is complete. At that time, the old wideband channels must
be removed, resulting in the radios being required to be programmed twice.
Most areas have statewide fire and police channels used for interoperability and mutual-aid responses. As areas start to convert, first responders may
need to know if they should be communicating on the law interoperability
channel in wideband or narrowband mode. In general, the fewer radio decisions that need to be made when responding to an emergency the better. Its
often hard enough to get responders on the right channels, and making sure
they are all on narrowband or wideband adds a significant amount of complexity. Its easier for users in a given region to convert at about the same
time. I hope that wont be during the last quarter of 2012.
Planning. The transition of most systems will involve base station, mobile and portable equipment. However, depending on the coverage predictions, additional sites, voting receiver equipment and base station equipment
could be required. This could mean a conversion to simulcast to get the desired coverage. It could also mean changes to the existing console system.
The coverage analysis for both talk-in and talk-out will be the starting place
to determine how much of the system design must change.
Implementation time and budget are directly tied to any system design
changes. The need for additional sites could trigger permit applications,
lease agreements and many other nontechnical processes that can take
many months to complete. Just as with rebanding, there will be a shortage of

resources to implement narrowbanding. If everyone waits until the last half of
2012 to begin implementing, resources will be limited.
Joe Blaschka Jr. is the principal at Adcomm Engineering and a registered

professional engineer (P.E.) in eight states. Blaschka has been working
in the communications field for almost 40 years, obviously starting in
kindergarten. He has authored numerous papers and presentations.
E-mail comments to j.blaschka@adcomm911.com.
Narrowbanding:
Will You Be Ready?
The last several years have marked some of
the biggest regulatory issues facing a normally
calm land-mobile industry in quite some time. Licensees in the 800 MHz band are reconfiguring
their systems to eliminate interference with publicsafety operations a multiyear process that will
not be completed as originally scheduled. The
FCC, partially because of 800 MHz reconfiguration, has frozen frequencies in the 900 MHz landmobile band. Now the rest of the land-mobile
community is preparing for the next big thing: the
mandatory equipment reconfiguration for users of
frequencies between 150 and 512 MHz using older, wideband equipment. This
process, once referred to as refarming, is now generally known as narrowbanding the land-mobile channels.
Narrowbanding impacts all industry segments. The Utilities Telecom Council
(UTC) recently completed a research project surveying members about their
plans to comply with the narrowband directive. UTC asked small- and largesized firms a series of questions related to the technology they use now, what
they would like to upgrade to and the importance of mobile data in the process
of radio dispatch. UTC also asked about the direct migration to 6.25 kilohertz,
nontraditional solutions and the use of commercial carriers. The following survey results provide some insight into the land-mobile industrys progress toward
the upcoming federal mandate.
Mandate Details
The FCCs effort to increase spectrum efficiency for users of frequencies licensed under Part 90 began in 1992. The FCC created channels with available
bandwidths of 12.5 and 6.25 kilohertz and allowed licensees to use existing
channels with the smaller bandwidths to relieve spectrum congestion. Early in
the process, the FCC elected not to fix a mandatory migration date from 25
Photo courtesy Adcomm Engineering
By Klaus Bender
42 I Narrowbanding: Will You Be Ready?
kilohertz voice operations down to 12.5 kilohertz. In late 2004, the FCC set
dates associated with the transition process with the final deadline of Jan. 1,
2013, which is now less than five years away.
To comply with the new rules, voice radio systems must be able to provide
one voice conversation in 12.5-kilohertz bandwidth or less. Data systems must
have a channel efficiency of 4.8 kilobits per second (kbps) per 6.25-kilohertz
bandwidth. Licenses for the systems that arent converted by the 2013 deadline
will be cancelled, with the licensees subject to whatever fine the FCC chooses
to impose. The FCC elected not to identify a specific date for further migration
to 6.25-kilohertz technology, but encouraged licensees to migrate directly from
25 to 6.25 kilohertz prior to 2013 if suitable equipment is available. Three manufacturers offer 6.25-kilohertz-compliant equipment. The regulatory uncertainty
associated with narrowbanding to 6.25 kilohertz has impacted the progress of
12.5-kilohertz migration; licensees must weigh their options in case their investments in new technology become stranded assets in 10 years if the market
moves in a different direction.
Thousands of land-mobile licensees need to upgrade their equipment, and
potentially millions of radios need replaced or modified. Large licensees will
spend millions of dollars bringing their systems into compliance. Many firms are
already slowly updating radios as older units need to be repaired or replaced.
The challenge for the land-mobile industry is informing small licensees that
have been using the same radio systems for 20 years that they must now replace the radios with a more efficient technology. Like the 800 MHz rebanding
effort, these small companies or agencies often dont believe the FCC will enforce the new standards. However, delaying addressing this issue could create
significant financial pressure in the future.
Industry Survey Results
The capital costs of upgrading radio equipment can be significant and require
management approval. The approval may come from the management of a utility company, a state budget committee or a group of county commissioners.
One of the first questions asked during the budget approval process is What is
everyone else doing? The following addresses concerns of critical-infrastructure providers and the land-mobile industry.
Technology. Firms looking at a complete system replacement are also
seeking new or improved functionality. Channel-efficient trunking technologies
and digital modulation are evaluated when the system size justifies such
consideration. More efficient use of the radio spectrum ultimately means fewer
base station radios and dollars. Owners of small systems with one base station and a handful of mobiles are more likely to do a radio-for-radio upgrade.
Consider that some of the systems replaced are more than 20 years old.
There are more bells and whistles on current LMR equipment, and users
want access to those enhancements. Desired functionality includes backhaul
over broadband networks to reduce the cost of multiple base stations and
wide-area deployments. Man down, or emergency override calling capability,
is as much a concern for utilities as it is for public safety. Integration of IP into
voice-communications systems makes the radios addressable from the corporate backbone network, facilitating text messaging and instant messaging
to groups of users. The enhancements improve workforce productivity and
may justify the cost of a system upgrade.
12.5 or 6.25 Kilohertz. The survey showed companies that have already
committed to, or are planning, a narrowband equipment change are using 12.5kilohertz bandwidth, either in analog or digital mode. While 6.25-kilohertz equipment is available in various forms, these systems use proprietary modulation.
The prices for 6.25-kilohertz radios and infrastructure are competitive with other
technologies, and further competition will continue to drive pricing down.
System interoperability plays a major role in this decision, and firms that need
to talk to their neighbors whether public-safety systems or those in the energy sector want to make sure radios will communicate with each other during an emergency. Early adopters of 6.25-kilohertz modulation will be small,
stand-alone systems. Further standardization of 6.25-kilohertz modulation will
occur as the 2011 deadline for dual-mode equipment approaches.
Voice vs. Data. The use of data for workforce management is increasing in
the critical-infrastructure industry. Routine work assignments are often displayed on computer screens with graphics and other necessary information.
Voice communications remains critical for emergency situations, but an increasing percentage of workforce vehicles are equipped with both voice and data
communications, impacting the spectrum requirements for advanced systems.
Unfortunately, the pieces of bandwidth available to land-mobile licensees are
squeezed into smaller chunks, resulting in shrinking data rates in an era when
bandwidth is critical to providing up-to-date information to workers in the field. A
data rate of 9.6 kbps is no longer sufficient for workforce data communications.
Some utilities are solving these problems by installing Wi-Fi hot spots in substations so that work crews can pick up necessary data throughout the day.
Firms with high-data-rate requirements are likely to look toward the following
mixed solutions.
Frequency Bands. Lower frequencies, those in the VHF 150 MHz band, remain the favorite of licensees with rugged, mountainous terrain. New trunked
VHF systems are being designed and implemented, primarily in the western
part of the United States by public-safety agencies and utilities. UHF remains
crowded, but some firms are looking at trunked system designs in this band.
The 900 MHz band is an opportunity for the few licensees that already have
some licenses in this range a concession by the FCC on the freeze on activity here. FCC officials say they are closer to the finish line than the starting line
related to the 900 MHz rulemaking, so perhaps a decision will be released
soon. The cost of a wide-area 900 MHz network may be double that of a lower
frequency design because of the bands propagation characteristics, which
weighs heavily in the return on investment (ROI) calculations.
Alternative Spectrum Options. These solutions provide frequencies for
land-mobile use outside the normal site-by-site licensing process. Large enterprise systems create a financial challenge to licensees faced with narrowbanding. Many industries have seen consolidation through mergers and acquisitions.
The narrowbanding challenge is increased when the communications systems
of large firms are made up of disparate, smaller systems. The existing equipment environment often includes combined VHF and UHF systems, pieced together into a working system at the time of a merger. The FCC comes along
and says these radios all need to be replaced, and now the licensee has a significant radio design project on its hands.
Alternative spectrum solutions, such as leased or purchased spectrum, are
attractive for firms that can afford it, because buying or leasing spectrum allows
the agency to build a systemwide, ubiquitous solution with less regulatory
uncertainty. Firms committed to their land-mobile systems will consider the increased costs associated with purchasing or leasing spectrum in their planning
for system upgrades. The 217 222 MHz band, as well as other channels
below 1 GHz sold at auction, are leased and sold.
Commercial Solutions. The financial impact of an industrywide equipment
replacement on land-mobile licensees hasnt escaped the attention of commercial carriers, who are targeting public safety, utility and other traditional land-mobile markets with products that combine voice and data services. The carriers
are agreeing to service-level agreements (SLAs) to convince land-mobile licensees that commercial services have the reliability associated with private
land-mobile operations. Large contracts will make carriers consider modifying

buildout schedules for rural areas and even consider access to infrastructure
when pricing their services. Firms with towers, poles and building rooftop space
available for cellular or PCS antennas are assets to the carriers, and these
firms can reap financial benefit.
Some firms are retaining their private-fixed and mobile-data networks and
using commercial providers for voice communications. Others are using commercial 3G and 4G solutions from carriers for data to workers or vehicles and
using the least-costly solution for land-mobile dispatch. Clearly, small firms with
a few radios will evaluate the cost of replacing these radios with their narrowband equivalents or just signing up with a commercial carrier. Business cases
can be made for either option. Public safety and critical infrastructure will lean
toward maintaining private-radio systems, while others will opt for the nearly
universal coverage of commercial networks. But for the most part, missioncritical communications will remain on private-communications networks,
according to survey data.
Costs. Interview respondents who have completed system upgrades were
often reluctant to discuss what they paid for their new systems. Those who did
were large utilities with service territories of more than 1,000 square miles
and more than 1,000 handheld and portable radios, with a hundred or more
base stations. Some utilities moved out of the frequencies below 512 MHz
and went to 800 MHz. All in all, survey respondents say their system costs averaged between $14 million and $30 million. While pricing for commercial systems wasnt revealed, there is recognition that the financial savings with
commercial providers has to be balanced against the reliability, coverage and
capacity losses.
For rough calculations, mobile and portable radios for the land-mobile
bands can cost between $600 and $3,000 each. Base station radios will cost
from $3,000 to more than $10,000 each. Including trunked operations will add
controller costs to the base station, as will any of the 6.25-kilohertz compliant
solutions available now. If you want radios that communicate through the corporate IP network, you will add costs associated with switches and other
network hardware.
What Now?
The challenge for the FCC and land-mobile trade associations is getting the
word out to small companies and agencies that dont follow FCC rules as much
as they should. The general consensus is that the FCC will not look favorably
on requests for relief because a licensee didnt know about the narrowbanding
mandate. By 2013, this rulemaking will be 21 years old; there is no excuse for
not knowing about it. Noncompliant systems will be cancelled; the time to get
equipment upgrades into the budget cycle is now.
The business frequency coordination agencies and public-safety coordinators are good resources for licensees who need help. Law firms specializing in
land-mobile communications can help with complex issues, and companies that
provide land-mobile licensing services are resources as well. Manufacturers
sales representatives will let you know your options. E-mail groups have formed
to discuss the issue.
The process of complying with the narrowbanding rules is similar to what
firms are doing to comply with the 800 MHz reconfiguration efforts. FCC licenses need to be reviewed and brought up to date. Radios need to be inventoried to develop an exact count to budget for the process. Good planning and the
support of management will assure the timely completion of a project. The landmobile industry continues to be dynamic, and the next few years will be no less
exciting than those we have just completed. The time frame for this effort is now
on the same order as 800 MHz rebanding and will involve significantly more radios. A look to lessons learned during 800 MHz reconfiguration will certainly
streamline the narrowbanding effort for the rest of the land-mobile community.
Showing company and agency management that narrowbanding issues impact everyone using land-mobile equipment may ease the process of getting
budgets approved. The fact that alternatives are available may complicate the
planning process. The outcome the FCC and industry seek is spectrally efficient
communications using the best technology available. We also hope that spectral efficiency can translate into workforce efficiency. We have less than five
years to figure out how to do it.
Klaus Bender, P.E., is UTCs director of engineering. He provides technical

expertise for UTCs spectrum services, FCC license management and
research efforts. Bender is a professional engineer with more than 25 years
of experience in telecommunications engineering matters. E-mail comments
to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
7 Steps to
Narrowbanding Compliance
By Nick Ruark
The following seven steps are necessary to successfully meet and comply
with the FCCs Jan. 1, 2013, narrowband deadline for all Part 90 business,
educational, industrial, public-safety, and local and state government twoway radio system licensees currently operating legacy wideband (25 kilohertz) voice dispatch or data/supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) radio systems in the 150 174 MHz (VHF) and 421 512 MHz
(UHF) bands.
1. Verify that your company or organization has a current and valid FCC
Part 90 radio station license. A license is required to legally operate any Part
90 VHF or UHF radio system. This license may have been issued directly to
your company or organization or to a third-party repeater service provider. If
you are unable to verify that a current license for your system exists, contact
a local professional radio/wireless communications system vendor, reputable
and qualified FCC licensing assistance service, or an FCC-certified frequency coordinator immediately to avoid any loss of use of your radio system
or any penalties for unauthorized or illegal operation.
2. Conduct a full inventory of all radios in your system, including all
portable, mobile, dispatcher used, wireless data or SCADA, and on- or offsite base or repeater radios. Its important to list the specific makes and
model numbers of all radios inventoried. It might also be wise to note the serial numbers of each for internal tracking purposes.
3. Contact a local professional two-way radio service vendor to help you
determine which models are capable of being reprogrammed for narrowband
operation and which models arent. Any radio that cant be reprogrammed to
narrowband operation must be replaced. Most new radios procured during
the past seven to nine years should be narrowband ready; however, its recommended that all currently used radios in a system be verified as narrowband capable.
4. Initiate the internal business process of budgeting for and procuring any
new narrowband-capable replacement radios as necessary. Any new radios
procured should not be programmed for narrowband operation at this time.
48 I 7 Steps to Narrowbanding Compliance
Operating in mixed mode such as using both wideband and narrowband

radios on the same frequency is not recommended, particularly in data or
SCADA systems. If possible, any new narrowband radios procured should
continue to operate in the wideband mode until the actual switch from wideband to narrowband operation is made.
5. Develop a wideband-to-narrowband conversion plan that reflects wellcoordinated logistical and implementation strategies needed to accommodate the replacement and installation of any new narrowband-capable off-site
base or repeater station radio(s) needed in advance. The plan should include
reprogramming all radios in a system as close to simultaneously as possible
to assure minimal disruption to ongoing radio communications operations.
Work closely with a professional two-way radio service vendor during the
development of any system conversion plan to insure there are no surprises
during the actual narrowbanding cutover.
6. Schedule and coordinate with your radio service vendor, as soon as
possible, dates and times for the actual system conversion (or cutover), making certain that all radio users have been advised in advance and are aware
of the process. Also make sure that all handheld and mobile radios are readily available for reprogramming at pre-scheduled times.
7. The final step in the narrowbanding process is to modify your FCC radio
station license to reflect the technical change in system emissions from
wideband to narrowband and make any other changes or updates that may
be required. Employing the services of a reputable and qualified FCC licensing assistance firm, FCC-certified frequency coordinator, or professional
two-way radio communications service company to help with this process is
strongly recommended.
Dont wait until the last minute to begin the narrowbanding process; you
may be risking not only the use of your current radio frequency, but the investment you have made in your radio system equipment as well.
Nick Ruark is the general manager of Quality MobileCommunications

(www.qualitymobile.com), a mobile communications dealer in Vancouver,
Wash. For more details and discussion on the narrowbanding mandate,
visit www.wirelessradio.net. E-mail feedback to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
Section 3:
Technology Solutions
Simulcast Networks, Ed OConnor, Joe Blaschka Jr. and John Thompson ............51
Affordable Coverage Options, Joe Ross and Rick Burke ........................................56
A Roadmap for Signal Testing, Carl Peek ...............................................................61
Rural Agencies Adopt Digital Communications, Sandra Wendelken ......................66
The Big Digital Decision, Todd Ellis .........................................................................68
Sponsored by
51 I Section 3: Technology Solutions
Simulcast Networks
As the Jan. 1, 2013 narrowbanding deadline

approaches, two fundamental paths being evaluated by public-safety entities around the country
are to stay analog and migrate to 12.5 kilohertz
or to put in a new digital 12.5-kilohertz Project 25
(P25) system. Because of increased user coverage expectations, multitransmitter systems are
being specified and installed.
Simulcast is the contraction of the words simultaneous and broadcast and refers to transmitting the exact same modulation on the exact
same frequency from multiple geographically distributed and overlapping
transmitters at the exact same time. Simulcast is spectrally efficient, can provide excellent coverage, and is operationally simpler than using multiple channels or zones.
Finances may play a role in the analog/digital technology selection decision. When narrowbanding an existing analog system, a large percentage of
the portables and mobiles purchased during the past decade are already narrowband capable. So staying analog requires a municipality to upgrade only
the infrastructure, usually representing a lower initial cost of compliance. Converting to P25 requires making a wholesale change of infrastructure and all
field units; but P25 provides digital interoperability and may qualify for partial
grant funding. The following recaps decisions that two municipalities made
one chose analog and the other digital and then provides a thumbnail of
the simulcast technology employed implementing each system.
New York Analog Simulcast System
For years, rural Broome County, N.Y., wanted to consolidate the dispatch of
five of its fire departments to facilitate mutual aid. Volunteers in Broome
County serve an 85-square-mile area in the western part of the county. The
Photo courtesy Washington State Department of Transportation
By Ed OConnor, Joe Blaschka Jr.

and John Thompson
52 I Simulcast Networks
topography is hilly; north-south ridges and valleys intersect in a T with eastwest terrain. Broome County had a primary dispatch site serving four of the
departments, but a second site was operated for just one of the fire departments. The channels were both low- and high-band VHF analog, operating on
25-kilohertz channels. The countys microwave system linked the two repeater
sites, along with four additional satellite receivers, to dispatch.
With the FCCs narrowbanding mandate looming, it was an ideal time to
both narrowband the system and simplify operations. Coverage from the primary site had holes. Adding the second site remedied the holes, but two different channels meant an unworkable dispatch situation and missed calls.
Using one repeater pair at both sites on the same frequency introduced large
areas of overlapping coverage with destructive interference. Sequential paging of multiple departments from two sites took forever and tied up dispatch.
An additional concern, which complicated matters, was that with the reduced
signal-to-noise-ratio on 12.5-kilohertz analog channels, coverage was potentially going to shrink and create more operational complications. County officials viewed simulcasting the channel to be the only viable solution.
As part of their initial investigation, Broome County officials considered upgrading the fire channel to P25, but because of the high potential cost, it wasnt a viable solution. An upgrade to a new P25 system is planned as part of
the countys five-year budget outlook, but officials are hoping a grant will fund
the majority of the system. Even if much of the initial investment is paid, there
is a concern about the annual maintenance fee.
Tri County Communications of Binghamton, N.Y., the local Motorola Service
Shop (MSS), proposed an analog upgrade to simulcast that addressed all the
countys needs. The design included a Raytheon JPS Communications digital
signal processor (DSP) voter, which collects audio from six receiver sites and
forwards the best signal. This selected receive audio, as well as dispatch
audio, passes through a narrowband booster limiter designed by Keriza Systems, which keeps audio levels constant. Spectracom GPS master oscillators
provide accurate reference signals to keep transmitter carriers and continuous
tone controlled squelch system (CTCSS) synchronized so communications in
the overlap area are understandable. Timing and audio equipment by Convex
automatically adjusts the audio launch time and keeps the levels the same. Tri
County had spare base stations and microwave/multiplexing gear, so the
whole system was staged in its shop with all the gear for two repeater sites
and the microwave connection. All wiring and polarities were verified before
deploying to the sites. Staging the system allowed technicians to work with
the timing in the convenience of the shop. Staging the entire setup saved
time, because when the equipment was deployed to the field, little overlap
timing adjustment was needed.
The five fire chiefs are pleased with the seamless simulcast coverage that
their new channel provides and their system is narrowband compliant two
years ahead of the 2013 deadline. There have not been any complaints about
the system coverage; the two-site dispatch channel reaches the needed volunteers, telling them when to switch to the correct simplex operations channels.
Analog Simulcast Parameters
To simulcast voice, or tone and voice paging, one must control the potential
interference of the two or more sources. The overlap zone, or non-capture
area, is where the relative signal strength of the two or the highest signals is
within 15 dB for a 12.5-kilohertz channel. In this area, we attempt to trick a
receiver into thinking its only receiving one signal. For seamless communications in the overlap, the carrier center frequency must be within 1 hertz from
all sites; recovered audio and recovered CTCSS must be within 0.2 dB; and
audio must be aligned within 70 microseconds.
To transport simulcast audio to the transmitter sites, identical paths should
be used. T1 microwave, telco T1, IP microwave or RF linked systems are all
acceptable transport methods. RT phone lines make simulcast difficult because they may not be identical and can change frequency response characteristics based on temperature variations. Identical base stations of the same
type and vintage should be used. This analog technology is fairly well known,
but the P25 implementation requires more discussion.
P25 Simulcast in Washington
The Benton County, Wash., radio system was an analog 800 MHz Motorola
SmartNet system operating with five sites to cover an area of about 1,800
square miles. The county contains the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and is
north of the Umatilla Chemical Depot, an Army facility that houses chemical
weapons. The county radio system was originally built with Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) funds and served the
county well for about 15 years. The 800 MHz system was used for day-to-day
public-safety, public-service and utility communications, and it was designed
using omnidirectional antennas to provide signals in the populated areas from
two or three sites.

Because the system was nearing the end of its useful life, it was updated to
a Motorola P25 digital trunked system using the same sites. For trunked systems, there is no choice but to upgrade to a digital system. Essentially, all new
trunked systems being manufactured are digital. However, because the P25
modulation format has less simulcast overlap delay tolerance, the new design
used highly directional antennas to minimize the radio signal overlap areas.
This resulted in lower overall signal levels in much of the populated areas with
some apparent reduction in coverage. An agreement between the Department of Energy and local Native American tribes caused the relocation of one
of the main high sites, resulting in additional loss of coverage. The overall system coverage is still being evaluated.
The conversion from analog to digital, whether trunked or conventional, will
likely not be as simple as taking out an analog system and dropping in a digital system, especially if simulcast is involved. Digital isnt bad; its just different.
Different design factors need to be considered, as well as the operational
setup. Mobile and portable programming can be complicated because of the
large number of settings available. Simulcast overlap that is acceptable in
analog systems isnt acceptable in P25 systems. With analog, simulcast distortion may result in fuzzy audio or slightly distorted audio, but in digital,
simulcast distortion can result in complete loss of audio. There is no graceful
degradation, which needs to be considered when planning the overall design.
P25 Simulcast Parameters
All the parameters important in analog simulcast are still important in digital
simulcast, but the names change a little. Carriers at each site must be precisely matched. Symbols the four-level character corresponding to a pair of
bits must be aligned. And transmit levels must be exactly the same for all
base stations on a particular channel.
A characteristic of digital signals is that even with a number of unreadable
symbols, the audio produced is just as good as an uncorrupted stream. On
the other hand, when a significant number of symbols cant be decoded,
there is no audio only silence. Digital provides excellent audio longer, but
at the fringe; analog will let you know something is happening, whereas digital is just silent.
Digital systems typically use an IP backbone for connectivity. The packets
are time stamped and carry the 9,600-baud payload (12,000 for P25 Phase 2
trunking control channel). Allowable distances between digital sites are

smaller than possible in analog simulcast systems. A modulation technique
called linear modulation allows for greater distances than simple C4FM, but
allowable intersite distances are still less than half the distance between analog sites. P25 Phase 2 uses a Constant Envelope Quadrature Phase Shift
Keying (CQPSK) modulation.
Analog simulcast systems can be designed and integrated by radio dealers,
OEMS and end users. Analog systems can be pieced together over time. P25
simulcast systems are more involved and are installed by an OEM or a dealer
who has emulated the OEMs design using exactly the same hardware and
software. Looking down the road, P25 systems with capability to migrate to
P25 Phase 2 will meet 6.25-kilohertz channel capacity.
While public safety has adopted P25 as its digital standard for interoperability, other digital technologies that are appearing in North America include:
Digital Mobile Radio (DMR), NXDN, OpenSky and TETRA. Some of these alternate technologies are already capable of a 6.25-kilohertz channel equivalent. About half of these alternate technologies can be simulcast (same
frequency from multiple sites), while others are oriented to different frequencies from multiple sites.
Deciding whether to stay analog or make the jump to a digital P25 system
is a major decision in which many factors should be considered. Economics
can play a role, but the existing proven simulcast technology will support either path selected.
Ed OConnor is the president of Simulcast Solutions and has designed simulcast hardware and systems for more than two decades. Email comments to
OConnor at ed@simulcastsolutions.com.
Joe Blaschka Jr. is principal of Adcomm Engineering and a registered
professional engineer (PE) in eight states. He has been working in the
communications field for almost 40 years. Email comments to Blaschka at
j.blaschka@adcomm911.com.
John Thompson is an Electronics Technician Association (ETA)-certified
master electronics technician with Tri-County Communications. He has more
than 30 years of experience.
Affordable Coverage Options

By Joe Ross and Rick Burke
Narrowbanding Options to Retain Coverage

P25 Migration
The impacts of the FCC narrowSimulcast System

banding mandate can be profound
Raise Tower
Voting
Receivers
and confusing. Perhaps the most
Change Output Power
confusing and potentially the most
Talk-Back Improvements
costly impact is post narrowbanding
Fix RF Components
radio coverage. While migrating VHF
Relative Costs
and UHF radio channels to 12.5kilohertz channels by Jan. 1, 2013, isnt optional, a licensee can take many approaches to meet this FCC mandate. Several options will degrade coverage,
some will result in similar coverage and others actually improve coverage.
Three overriding constraints limit the narrowbanding solution space for any one
licensee: money, radio spectrum and time.
Migrating to a Project 25 (P25) system will improve coverage at high audio
quality levels in most cases. Because of the digital technologys ability to correct
bit errors, it can reconstruct the voice data to enable clear voice at lower signal
levels. However, a P25 solution generally comes at a substantial cost. For simple VHF systems, the infrastructure cost is fairly small; however, a wholesale
subscriber device replacement may be required, and P25-capable handsets
are more expensive than their analog cousins. P25 will also future proof the
system by enabling the straightforward deployment of 6.25-kilohertz equivalent
TDMA. Migrating to P25 may also enhance interoperability within a region.
Given these benefits and if the budget exists, moving to P25 may be a wise
choice.
When funds are scarce, many will be forced to maintain analog systems and
subscriber devices. In these scenarios, the greatest coverage degradation in
VHF/UHF radio coverage can occur. The TIAs TSB-88 suggests that a 12.5kilohertz analog channel is between 2 and 6 dB less than analog 25-kilohertz
channels. The variability depends on the frequency modulation deviation and
the voice quality level. For analog, while the noise bandwidth of the channel decreases at 12.5 kilohertz, the reduced frequency deviation inhibits the ability of
the receiver to successfully demodulate the voice with the smaller bandwidth.
57 I Affordable Coverage Options
However, a number of enhancements can be implemented to minimize or

eliminate the degradation. In systems where terrain already limits coverage, it
will continue to be the case. In these situations, a slight degradation in coverage
might have negligible impacts on portions of the service area because the signal drop-off is drastic and would similarly impact both the wideband and narrowbanded networks.
Depending on the type and architecture of the radio network, an engineer
can employ a number of solutions to minimize or eliminate the coverage impact.
Ultimately, the solution will depend on the weakest link in the system. In some
cases, the talk-out path (from base station to the mobile/portable units) will be
weaker, and in others, the talk-in path (from mobile to base station) will be
weaker. If, for example, the system is designed with a single transmit and receive site for portable use and without the use of tower-top amplifiers, it will
likely be talk-back limited. On the other hand, the system might employ multiple
voting receivers to capture and select the best signal from the optimal location.
In those cases, the system will likely be talk-out limited.
Cost-Effective Coverage
Modifying the Transmission System Design. Systems that are talk-back
limited will be easier to transition to narrowband operations. If not already employed, an engineer can introduce tower-top amplifiers, voting receivers, modified or new receiver multicouplers and other solutions to resolve the coverage
deficiency. In the reverse direction the talk-out path there are likely more
challenges to overcome. The talk-out challenge is that FCC rules will restrict
radio signal transmissions. For example, increased power levels, raised antenna heights and higher gain antennas could be employed to help improve
talk-out coverage. However, these actions will extend a stations interference
contour and require FCC approval.
Given the degree of VHF and UHF congestion throughout the country underlying the narrowband technology enhancement, its highly possible that there is
no or only minimal available margin (or area) to enhance the coverage of an existing coverage-impacted station. In other words, additional base station transmitter output power or increased antenna height to compensate for the lost
narrowbanded coverage area could cause the interference contour to extend
beyond other licensees service contours. If there is an increase in transmitter
power, higher gain antennas or increased antenna height are possible to compensate for the loss of analog channel narrowbanding. This would be the
simplest and cheapest solution to mitigate the coverage degradation.

Designing Additional Radio Sites. Another solution for minimizing the impact of the loss of base station talk-out coverage is to introduce more transmission sites. In addition to requiring a greater financial investment, this solution
would also require FCC approval and must be capable of being engineered
without interfering with other licensees. To address conventional (nontrunked)
operational coverage degradation, additional channels could be added at alternative radio sites to provide service where coverage holes exist under the narrowbanded architecture. Although this solution would resolve coverage issues,
it doesnt create an ideal radio operational situation, because it forces user interaction and channel switching whenever coverage zones are traversed.
Simulcast. Another even more expensive solution would be to simulcast the
primary transmit site to resolve coverage gap issues. This, too, would require
FCC approval and be engineered to avoid interference with other regional licensees. Even in the event that channel facilities can be licensed, narrowbanded operations will be more susceptible to self interference in the simulcast
architecture. An excess of coverage area overlap could render this option unavailable. If simulcast can be engineered and is within budget, the transition between coverage areas would be transparent to the user with this architecture,
making it an operationally attractive alternative. Simulcast includes high-end
GPS timing and channel synchronization that minimize the delay spread of the
transmit sites. This is the most elegant, yet far more expensive coverage
enhancement solution.
On the other hand, true simulcast systems that time the transmission from
multiple sites using GPS signals or other sources can enhance coverage within
the limits of conventional analog. By timing the transmissions between sites, the
delays can be engineered to allow good quality in overlap areas. But simulcast
systems are susceptible to boomer sites radio sites where antenna heights
of one or more sites are designed at a significantly higher height above sea
level than other sites in the simulcast cluster. In this configuration, the boomer
and smaller area coverage sites overlap and cause excessive delays a difference of more than 9 miles would be problematic in the overlap areas.
Bidirectional Amplifiers (BDAs). Another radio coverage management
alternative would be the use of simple BDAs in strategically located environments. A BDA in VHF and UHF spectrum would require a channelization design
to filter out unwanted signals and amplify only the wanted signals. With the
channelized filters, the resulting repeater delay would be high, making an
outdoor BDA coverage solution challenging. The application of the outdoor BDA
is extremely restrictive and will require a finely tuned service area with minimal
overlap. In other words, the BDA cant be considered a silver bullet to resolve
narrowband coverage degradation, and it may have limited applications. The
BDA could be useful in geographic areas where natural coverage barriers exist
between coverage areas, such as a mountain pass, but in these applications, 3
to 6 dB signal loss shouldnt result in significant coverage performance.
While a frequency shift repeater could be employed to alleviate VHF/UHF
coverage issues, it presents two fundamental problems. First, frequency shift
repeaters require an additional licensed frequency, albeit with a smaller coverage contour, and second, the units present an operational complexity, forcing
users to change channels in the new coverage area. At the end of the day,
BDAs are more useful for in-building applications and are unlikely to be effective
to overcome the 3 to 6 dB degradation of narrowbanded channels.
Preventative Maintenance. Realistically, many radio systems have degraded over time, and an investigation into radio transmission equipment quality
may prove invaluable in mitigating narrowband coverage loss and shouldnt be
overlooked. RF infrastructure degrades over time. Exposed to years of weather
elements, system aging and other factors naturally impact antenna transmission system performance. Water intrusion in cables and loosened connectors
are primary offenders to RF service degradation. In many instances, this degradation can be substantial, accounting for up to 10 dB of excess loss. The narrowbanding process presents an excellent opportunity to test the existing RF
systems and ensure they are operating effectively. Its conceivable that general
RF system maintenance and failed component replacement could offset the
losses from analog narrowbanding.
Any reduction in coverage is undesirable; however, a radio user would be
hard-pressed to field measure and field verify the audio quality reduction of less
than 2 dB in radiated power. For analog 12.5-kilohertz systems, a 3 dB reduction at the edge of the service area results in a reduction from 3.4 to 3 delivered
audio quality (DAQ), which should still be perceived as acceptable audio quality.
Both levels are defined as speech understandable, while 3.4 rarely requires
repetition, and 3 requires occasional repetition. As a result, a system designed
for high-quality audio will have some rough edges if the narrowbanding losses
can be contained to 3 dB. A loss of 6 dB, however, will be more noticeable at
the fringes of the system coverage.
Ultimately, only a thorough preventative maintenance and performance
analysis of the VHF/UHF radio system, including performance deficiencies, desired coverage (locations, use scenarios and equipment type), neighboring cochannel licensees, subscriber inventory narrowbanding status (replace vs.
reprogram), regional interoperability requirements, the available narrowbanding
capital budget, and a host of other factors will dictate the right narrowband coverage mitigation solution for each licensee. The important message for carriers
affected by narrowbanding coverage loss is that there are affordable options to
consider. A variety of viable technical solutions minimize or even mitigate the
coverage degradations that will result through narrowbanding. The options for
any VHF/UHF carrier vary from relatively inexpensive options as detailed to replacement or upgrade of radio equipment to digital, simulcast or additional coverage sites.
Until a detailed analysis of your equipment inventory is conducted and your
radio requirements are clarified, one thing is certain waiting to define a narrowbanding strategy isnt a prudent option. Licensees should begin the process
of defining their needs and engaging engineering support to assess the options. Licensees then should select a migration course that will achieve the best
results with the least capital investment and impact on critical radio coverage
and performance. Waiting could result in the selection of a less-than-ideal option at an excessive cost.
Joe Ross is a senior partner at Televate, a Falls Church, Va.-based consultancy

specializing in system engineering and program management for public-safety
communications. He has nearly 20 years of leadership in designing and operating LMR and commercial cellular systems and chairs the Public Safety
Spectrum Requirements Working Group for the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) technology committee. He is an
editorial advisor to MissionCritical Communications.
Rick Burke is managing partner at Televate and has more than 30 years of
engineering and system operations experience with complex communications
networks and applications. He is an expert in public-safety LMR and wireless
broadband system engineering and information technology and in implementing large-scale, multijurisdictional interoperable voice and data conventional,
digital and IP communications networks. E-mail comments to rburke@
televate.com.
A Roadmap for Signal Testing

By Carl Peek
Government mandates such as
800 MHz rebanding, VHF and
UHF narrowbanding and federal
grants for Project 25 (P25) equipment have made coverage testing
a required part of the wireless
system engineering cycle. In addition, new legislation and policies that codify indoor coverage
are emerging. These regulations
are motivated by the need to improve spectral efficiency and assure the
safety of first responders.
A wireless system may adequately meet the needs of a licensee; however, technology changes and federal or local legislation could require that
an existing system be replaced or significantly changed. In these cases,
the system designer must:
Benchmark the coverage of the existing system;
Specify the new system based on existing coverage performance; and
Test the new system to meet the coverage specifications.
Most system operators are familiar with the signal strength test for analyzing a wireless systems signal quantity across an area of intended coverage. This has long been the standard for new system compliance tests.
However, the ultimate test of a signal is not its quantity, but its quality
the ability to communicate, which can be measured in SINAD for analog
and bit error rate (BER) for digital systems.
Drive test packages automate over-the-air measurements while driving
or traveling throughout an area of interest. A test system can be set up to
combine many types of measurement data with time and location in a
measurement database, which can then be analyzed for a variety of
purposes.
62 I A Roadmap for Signal Testing
Testing Signal Quality

Digital. BER and signal strength measurements combined during drive
tests provide wireless engineers with an indication of the quality of the
wireless link across a service area tested. Transmitters are usually
equipped to create a known bit pattern for tuning and testing performance.
These patterns can be transmitted over the RF link and received, decoded
and analyzed for accuracy. Some manufacturers P25 radios have the ability to decode a standard pattern and provide a BER. And some manufacturers of digital radio test sets have developed highly sensitive instruments
that can decode BER off the air.
System engineers must determine whether they want a calibrated instrument conducting this analysis or if they are testing a radios ability to
receive and decode the signal around the service area. Both are valid
tests. Digital radio test set and subscriber unit solutions are both used for
analyzing digital signal quality of wireless systems such as P25 networks.
Drive tests of signal strength and BER concurrently are the best way to
measure the performance of a digital voice link.
Analog. Signal quality for analog signals is measured by SINAD. Engineers with analog voice link interests can use a drive test package to
make audio SINAD measurements of a two-tone signal being transmitted
over a voice link. An engineers test radio receives the signal, and the test
system digitizes the signal across the radio speaker or earpiece.
A fast Fourier transform (FFT) is performed on the audio sample to
convert the time sample to a frequency spectrum. The power of the desired two tones (signal) is then compared with the power outside the two
tones (noise and distortion). Signal strength along with audio SINAD
measurements are the best ways to analyze the performance of an analog
voice link.
Distortion. Signal quality measurements such as SINAD or BER will
uncover areas of signal distortion or co-channel interference where signal
strength is high but quality is reduced, allowing the designer to take action
to counteract the effects of the distortion.
Testing System Compliance
Compliance testing is one of the major reasons that system engineers
are mandating drive tests. Performance specification and methodology are
the most important parts of a new system acceptance plan. A testing
methodology including a tile analysis of test results can be used to quantify the coverage of a system.
After data collection, the area of interest can be analyzed statistically
using analysis based on rectangular tiles. A verifiable specification
statement for a communications system using this quantitative form of
analysis might read, Tile sizes will be 30-second rectangles. After
qualifying 80 percent of the tiles in this geographic area with at least 10
measurement samples, at least 95 percent of the qualified tiles must have
100 percent of their measurements above -95 dBm. This allows for an
objective standard when writing contracts for system development and
compliance testing of that systems performance.
Testing Indoor Coverage
In many urban areas, public spaces such as transit stations, arenas,
large shopping centers, schools and government buildings have specified
levels of wireless coverage or performance. This is becoming more common as national, state and municipal governments are increasingly aware
of the need for reliable communications in the face of potential disasters.
How are these requirements satisfied? The indoor testing option in
some software provides the ability to perform tests where GPS reception
is unavailable. The user provides a building plan as a background map and
specifies a measurement route on the plan. Measurements are performed
while traveling between points on the measurement route. The software
then locates the points geographically and uses the recorded measurements to create contour plots.
Testing Uplink
Uplink testing is important for two reasons. First, there is a difference in
portable versus site-transmitted power, which means the transmission
from the mobile to the site (the uplink) is a weaker link. Second, the uplink
and downlink in a voting receiver network architecture use completely different radio links.
For uplink testing, a mobile in a test vehicle transmits to the site; its
position and the time of the transmission are recorded in one database.
Meanwhile, the test system at the site is measuring signal characteristics,
logging measurements and the time of each measurement. After testing
is complete, an application can combine these two databases based on
time, and contour plots of measurement value over geography can be

created.
Synchronous Testing
If intermittent measurements are required, an application such as STI
Field Test 6 can be employed to synchronize transmission time and
measurement time and combine the databases after the measurements
are complete. In cases where a transmitter cant be turned on full time, a
synchronized measurement is required. This special technique is enabled
by a GPS timer application and an external computer-controlled relay.
The application synchronizes to GPS time of day and controls measurement start and stop times, transmitter on and off time, as well as the total
measurement cycle time. A computer-controlled relay allows a user to energize a mobile transmitter through a relay closure.
Hang Time Testing. The computer-controlled relay activates a mobile
transmitter, which causes a site transmitter to respond. The measurement
is made immediately after the relay deactivates the mobile transmitter and
during the hang time of the site transmitter.
Synchronized Testing. The software and hardware activate a site
transmitter at the same intervals that the mobile test unit is directed to
make measurements by the GPS timer driver extension.
These technology options allow measurements and the test signals to
be synchronized to GPS time of day at different locations.
Coverage Prediction
Many propagation software packages have the ability to import and display drive test measurements so that an actual versus predicted analysis
of signal strength can be performed. The method of using drive test measurements to calibrate a prediction result is especially useful when planning
a wireless system expansion. The existing systems actual signal coverage
can be measured and compared with the existing systems predicted coverage. If necessary, the prediction can be adjusted to more accurately reflect existing measured coverage. This increases confidence in projected
coverage for system changes or expansion.
In this way, models of the existing system are made with planning
software, calibrated against drive test measurements and used to plan
the system expansion. To assure communications critical to the safety of
our first responders, drive test measurements of signal quality, as well

as signal strength, are essential steps in system design, construction and
validation.
Carl Peek, president of Survey Technologies Inc. (STI), has 18 years of

experience with solutions for wireless system coverage testing. Contact
him at cpeek@surveytech.com.
Rural Agencies Adopt

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

By Todd Ellis
Current LMR system
Slot 2
Slot 1
operators have a major
Slot 2
Slot 1
decision to make
how to accommodate
6.25 kHz 6.25 kHz
subsubthe FCCs rulemaking
channel channel
that mandates 12.512.5 kHz channel
12.5 kHz channel
kilohertz migration.
Two FDMA channels within a
Two TDMA channels time slotted
Many systems still
12.5-kilohertz space
within a 12.5-kilohertz channel
operate on 25 kilohertzspaced channels and require retuning or replacement to meet the 2013
12.5-kilohertz narrowbanding deadline. Another issue to consider is that
since 2011, manufacturers can only request FCC type acceptance for new
products meeting 6.25-kilohertz channel bandwidths or an equivalence,
such as two signals within a 12.5-kilohertz channel. Current 25-kilohertz
system operators should consider whether to modify their existing analog
systems to operate at 12.5-kilohertz, hopscotch to digital technologies or
migrate from 12.5-kilohertz analog to digital technology. Considering
budget cycles typically run one to three years, system deployment decisions need to be made soon.
To operate on 6.25-kilohertz channels, transmission techniques might
include a digital mode that provides 4,800-baud vocoding or its equivalent
using faster baud rates on 12.5- or 25-kilohertz channels. Many mobile applications are now leaning toward IP for mobile data application support
and multisite transport. Several different digital voice transmission products are commercially available, and the purpose of this article is to objectively provide a comparison.
Essentially there are two major types of digital systems: time division
multiple access (TDMA) and frequency division multiple access (FDMA).
TDMA-based systems use a wider signal a 12.5 kilohertz-spaced channel but provide for multiple time slots in that same bandwidth. FDMA
systems use a pair of narrower channels adjacent 6.25-kilohertz
69 I The Big Digital Decision
channels and provide one voice/data path for each spectrum slice.
Each method has its benefits and drawbacks.
Project 25
For public safety, the Project 25 (P25) standard is designated for both 12.5and 6.25-kilohertz-spaced channel use. The Phase 1 digital standard describes a 12.5-kilohertz digital transmission system that is FDMA based, while
the P25 Phase 2 digital standard not yet completed calls for a 12.5-kilohertz TDMA transmission system for 6.25-kilohertz channel equivalence.
Although backward compatibility of features is called for, implementing
Phase 2 systems may require a forklift upgrade because of the change in
modulation schemes. P25 is a family of interfaces created as an open architecture system, but some infrastructure elements remain proprietary to specific vendors to allow them to recover research and development (R&D)
costs. The P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP), which aims to narrow incompatibilities, is under way.
Numerous suppliers offer P25 equipment. Subscriber unit equipment is
the most competitive, while trunked and simulcast infrastructure equipment
have the smallest number of suppliers. While several manufacturers are producing Phase 1 mobile and portable equipment, most are waiting for a final
approval of the Phase 2 standard before moving forward with Phase 2 product releases.
TETRA
TETRA is chiefly a European open standard for public-safety communications developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) that is gaining worldwide acceptance. Similar to P25, TETRA
has two releases that outline methodologies, interfaces and features. Both
releases are TDMA-based, and Release 2 adds high-speed data capability
using wideband spectrum. The standard was developed for public safety
but is expanding into other vertical markets, including transportation and
utilities.
TETRAs first release had inherent TDMA timing issues that prevented
some wide-area use where subscriber radios operated more than a certain distance from base stations. Release 2 expands that distance, but in
most implementations of the technology, high subscriber densities are
needed to substantiate the cost of the infrastructure. A Canadian utility is
building a TETRA network, and two U.S. transportation agencies have
conducted trials. About 25 manufacturers supply core TETRA products

around the world.
Icom IDAS/Kenwood NXDN
Besides public-safety applications, commercial radio manufacturers are
working to develop business and industry (BI) products. Kenwood and
Icom offer products with an FDMA transmission technique that promotes
efficient spectrum use. Icom calls its technology IDAS, and Kenwood markets its products under the NEXEDGE brand.
In the FDMA format, two 6.25-kilohertz-spaced channels are placed in
the same spectrum that a single 12.5-kilohertz channel would occupy. This
method meets the 6.25-kilohertz equivalency mandate because two distinct frequencies are multiplexed and channelized in this spectrum space.
One cost benefit of using two adjacent channels for FDMA or one 12.5kilohertz TDMA channel is that transmitter combining for two channels
is no longer necessary; a single, lower cost duplexer can be used in place
of a transmitter. However, duplexers require contiguous bandwidth, typically 25 kilohertz at maximum. Channels located in different channel
blocks not contiguous require combiners.
The original specification was written primarily for point-to-point, referred to in the standard as direct mode, handheld radio use. Kenwoods
and Icoms products work interchangeably in conventional mode. Product
developers for both companies have designed a trunked mode infrastructure that uses repeaters and links multiple sites via IP gateways. Kenwoods common air interface (CAI) is trademarked as NXDN, while Icoms
trunked system is marketed under the IDAS name. The frame payload for
both systems includes provisions for positioning information for AVL,
emergency signaling, status messaging and free form messaging. The
technology can network up to 16 sites via IP linking, and each site could
contain up to 30 channels.
DMR Tiers 2 and 3
Other manufacturers, specifically Motorola Solutions and Tait Electronics, are busy with another TDMA-based ETSI standard developed for BI industries, Digital Mobile Radio (DMR). Similar to P25 Phase 2, two time
slots are offered over a 12.5-kilohertz channel, providing 6.25-kilohertz
equivalence. There are three levels of DMR. Tier 1 was specified to work in
direct mode with no repeaters or other infrastructure. Tier 2 is a conventional configuration that also allows multisite access. Tier 3 is a trunked
configuration. The ETSI specification states that feature sets are comparable with those found on MPT 1327 systems; both Tier 2 and 3 offer popular
features that include text messaging, data payloads and AVL location information.
In Tier 2, multiple sites can be implemented and linked. Motorolas
MOTOTRBO system uses four USB ports to allow traffic to flow to up to 16
voice channels. In Tier 3, multiple sites with multiple channels are permitted. For manufacturers such as Tait that already produce analog MPT
1327 systems and plan to move to DMR, Tier 3 adds digital capabilities
that include spectrum efficiencies, IP linking without analog-to-digital
routers, and IP connectivity to data devices. Unlike P25 Phase 2, there are
no provisions for wideband applications. Several vendors supply commercially available DMR equipment, and Tait and Simoco Group plan to
release DMR products in the near future.
Migration
One common feature for both the NXDN and DMR formats is the capability to operate in analog or digital mode to support mode migration. This
allows users to deploy digital-capable infrastructure repeater/control stations, yet allows for controllable cutovers to new fleets of digital-capable
mobile and portable radios. Taits planned migration methodology for DMR
Tier 3 is to permit MPT 1327 system owners to convert their existing analog infrastructure to digital. Only reciters the transmitter and receiver in
one plug-in section in the repeater case need to be replaced, and the
control server/node software is updated; intersite networking is already set
up for IP routing. This concept provides one way to leverage existing infrastructure investments, assuming a migration to digital might be necessary.
While the FCC mandated refarming the 150 and 450 MHz bands to
12.5-kilohertz-spaced channels, its optional to leapfrog technologies and
go to 6.25 kilohertz and/or its equivalence using a digital mode. For
smaller commercial systems using only one or two sites, it may be comparably inexpensive to go directly to a digital technology. For medium- and
large-sized commercial systems, it may be more cost effective to move toward a 12.5-kilohertz analog infrastructure with a migration option for digital if deemed necessary.
Todd Ellis, PMP, has more than 20 years of experience in the wireless
telecommunications industry. Ellis has conducted consulting, system design, regulatory assistance and project management worldwide. E-mail
comments to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
One Test Set for All Your

Narrowbanding Test Needs
Whatever land mobile radio

system you rely on, the Aeroflex
3920 has the capability to test it.
With multiple radio test systems
for P25, MOTOTRBO, TETRA,
NXDN, dPMR, and now P25
Phase II TDMA, the Aeroflex
3920 has the POWER and
accuracy
to
technologies.
test
todays
The Aeroflex 3920 is the first

digital and analog radio test set
to provide full coverage of all of
the major narrowband digital
radio standards, for both mission
critical and professional radio
systems. With the new capability
to test P25 Phase II, the Aeroflex
3920 is leading the way in
narrowband radio test. Other
radio test sets cant measure up
to the 3920. Only the 3920
provides accurate, reliable, and
complete
radio
test
and
alignment. The Aeroflex 3920 is
the one test set for all your test
needs.
FREE DEMO! Call 1-800-8352352 to request a Free Demo
and put the 3920 exclusive
capabilities to the test!
Learn more by going to
www.aeroflex.com/narrowband
and request a data sheet on the
3920.
www.aeroflex.com
www.p25.com
Section 4: User Best

Practices and Case Studies
Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding.......................................................75
How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?.......................................................77
Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments, Sandra Wendelken ...........................82
Railroads Weigh Digital Options, Del Williams ........................................................87
Sponsored by
75 I Section 4: User Best Practices and Case Studies
Railway Manager
Prepares for Narrowbanding
By Sandra Wendelken
Eldon Prax is a manager of the transmission systems group
of the BNSF Railway and has 25 years of experience. The railway carries coal, agricultural, consumer and industrial products
in 28 western states and British Columbia. Praxs group has responsibility for more than 6,600 route miles of fiber and more
than 18,000 miles of microwave radio. The railway currently has analog, digital
and IP microwave deployed. All BNSFs backbone systems carry critical applications such as train control and signaling, as well as data and voice needed to
support the franchise. Prax oversees the microwave and fiber systems and a
staff of 10.
To what do you attribute your success?
Hard work, desire to learn and genuine concern for the people who I work
with. I spent some time in the U.S. Marine Corps where hard work and leadership traits such as loyalty, knowledge, integrity and unselfishness were more
than platitudes in a presentation; they were expected, earned and used every
day. In the civilian world, those same leadership traits are important and tried
and true. People can reach levels of excellence through hard work, but it takes
a great leader, coach or mentor to bring out the best in the team as a whole
versus individual victories.
I firmly believe in a healthy mix of experience and education. I have three degrees and would like to continue my post-graduate work toward a doctorate
some day. I dont believe or subscribe to the thought that successful leaders
must have advanced degrees, but I believe that ongoing learning and understanding the trends in our industry are imperative to success for the organization. Growing up on a farm is also part of my ethos and work ethic. Failure is
not an option takes on a whole new meaning when it is -20 degrees, and you
have animals freezing to death.
What was your biggest business-related mistake?
I was serving as a chief technology officer (CTO) of a venture-funded telecom
76 I Railway Manager Prepares for Narrowbanding
firm that provided engineering services in the United States and Europe. Our
firm signed a purchase and sale agreement with a Fortune 50 firm, and we
were engaged in due diligence. Operationally, we discontinued business development so our revenue pipeline grew stale. The tech crash happened; we never
exercised change of control and consequently went out of business.
In hindsight, what would you have done differently?
Have a plan B and not be afraid to pull the trigger.
What is your favorite part of your job?
Tackling big projects and working with people.
What is your least favorite part of your job?
Tackling big projects and working with people without the proper training,
tools and attitude.
What policy do you see most impacting the industry during the next five
years?
The whole evolution wrapped around refarming/rebanding. We have to be
prepared to be more flexible and nimble when it comes to frequency re-use and
allocation. In the railroad, we have FCC mandates that will take us from 25-kilohertz centers to 6.25 kilohertz. This represents a huge monetary and workforce
commitment. As technical subject matter experts, we have to be prepared for
the stress this will place on our applications through the migration process, as
well as our workforce.
What has been the hottest topic in your work during the past six months?
The commitment to IP. Without a successful and properly architected IP fabric, all of the new buzz-word technologies will not perform. We are making concerted steps to be transparent to our customers while making the IP transition.
For a fleet of 6,600 locomotives and 75,000 devices, thats no small accomplishment.
What previous jobs have you held?
I have worked for numerous telecommunications companies, including Flextronics Network Systems, Ericsson USA, Sprint PCS, Sigma Communications
and American Tower.
How Has the Mandate

Affected Your Network?
Adams: The narrowbanding mandate has given us a great
sales tool to entice an incumbent user to migrate to new technology. The FCCs guidance document DOC-271692A1, which
suggests current 25-kilohertz users should consider migrating
directly to 6.25-kilohertz technologies rather than stopping at
12.5 kilohertz, are some of the greatest marketing tools that
dealers have had in a long time.
Beck: As a utility that operates in the 150 MHz band, we find
ourselves in a compare and contrast between the systems that
we know and operate and the modifications that we will make to
meet the deadline. Beyond that, the comparison between the
coverage models and field experience continues to be a hot
topic. We find ourselves evaluating the entire system and not
just narrowing the emission mask of a system. The mandate has
provided an opportunity.
Blaschka: The vast majority of equipment will be upgraded to
newer, more capable equipment. There wont be many Mocom
70s and Master IIs around after narrowbanding. This will provide
many users with the ability to add enhanced features such as
push to talk identification (PTT-ID), as well as providing additional channels for mutual aid. Given the channel spacing on
VHF, there wont be a significant increase in available channels
that can be used. On UHF, there will be a large number of channels available in many areas. Unfortunately, most of the suburban and rural systems are on VHF. It will be interesting to see if
more VHF users migrate to UHF to gain channels.
Scott Adams
President
Adams Electronics
Ron Beck
Network Engineer
Central Lincoln
(Ore.) Peoples
Utility District
Joe Blaschka
Consultant
Adcomm Engineering
Dowd: Were concerned about the FCC requirements that mandate narrowbanding. Thats really been the driver on this quest for a good communications
technology solution. I understand what the FCC was doing 15 18 years ago
when trying to devise a way to make spectrum more efficient, but it doesnt
78 I How Has the Mandate Affected Your Network?
make sense to spend $300 million to narrowband a system that

would give the New York Police Department (NYPD) what it has
now. We would rather make that investment in broadband instead of two separate systems.
Weve done extensive testing during the past three to four
years in analog and digital solutions. We looked at TDMA and
CDMA because we didnt want to do it twice, 12.5 and 6.25 kilohertz. There are a lot of folks building narrowband solutions,
which is fine because they are already past their useful life. We
can operate on our system for another five years. If we can get
700 MHz broadband public-safety spectrum, we will only have to
do that buildout once. Its less expensive to do a 700 MHz overlay of the 2.5 GHz New York City Wireless Network (NYCWiN)
than to narrowband our UHF system.
In addition, how do you migrate a 24/7 system with no downtime? How would you migrate from the existing system to a
narrowband system without it affecting your operations dramatically? The logistics of having to narrowband are problematic.
Charles Dowd
Deputy Chief
Communications
Division
New York Police
Department (NYPD)
NYC 9-1-1
Andrew Schwartz
Director
Radio Communications
and Electronic Security
Systems
New Jersey Transit
Schwartz: New Jersey Transit (NJT) is one of the largest

transportation agencies in the country. A major segment of our
operation is commuter rail operating under Federal Railroad Act
(FRA) rules. All of our commuter locomotives and cab cars are
equipped with radios operating in the 160 MHz railroad band
under the Association of American Railways (AAR) channel
plan. These radios and the associated fixed infrastructure are
impacted by the FCC narrowbanding requirements and have to
be narrowbanded by 2013. Plans are being developed to address the narrowbanding requirement, along with the correspon- John Johnson
Radio System Analyst
ding budgets. For railroad and police, the application of digital
Tennessee Emergency
Management Agency
technology is being considered at the same time that narrow(TEMA)
banding must take place. The big question is will the right digital
technology be available, affordable and able to be implemented within the timeframe necessary to meet the 2013 deadline?
The narrowbanding mandate has already driven us to narrowband our bus
garages that use 450 MHz radios for on-site communications. It has also driven
the hiring of a consultant to assess all of our 160 MHz operations and options
for addressing narrowbanding those systems.

Johnson: The narrowbanding mandate has taken a lot of time
to educate others across the state, go through our agency
equipment inventory and determine what needs to be replaced,
along with ordering the equipment. Currently, we are working on
our migration plan to narrowband, which will most likely be a
VHF Project 25 (P25) system.
Haraseth: The largest impact of narrowbanding for the publicsafety sector is clearly operational. The vast majority of equipment in use is now capable of narrowband operation. The trick
for public-safety agencies is a coordinated move to narrowband
operation that will not impede the interdiscipline/agency interoperability and mutual use of resources developed during the past
10 15 years. Merely identifying the numerous systems, users
and operations impacted by various inter-related licensees is a
significant task, let alone developing an organized migration
plan to manage the shift.
Baroch: By mandating narrowbanding action, the FCC will
force a change in structure that will allow improvements in the
system. Just as with any mandate of this nature, some will act
early and some will leave it to the last minute and force a
scramble of last-minute activity. Look at the analog-to-digital TV
mandate as an example.
Ron Haraseth
Public-Safety
Consultant
Steve Baroch
Partner
The NetMark Group
Fredrick Smith
Telecommunications
Engineer
Chevron
Smith: The FCCs narrowbanding initiative seems to be moving forward

smoothly, yet in talking with some of my friends in the public-safety arena in
California, where we have budget problems, a few questions may be left to the
last minute to be asked. Can I just turn the deviation down on my old radios and
continue using them? Why do I need to re-coordinate and re-license my system? Why cant all existing 25-kilohertz licenses be automatically converted to
12.5 kilohertz on January 2013?
Poarch: The commissions narrowbanding requirements have been in place
for a number of years, and provided for a significant amount of time for
mission-critical entities to incorporate these requirements into

their long-term network planning and procurement schedules.
The commission adopted a fourth memorandum opinion and
order, which clarified that the commission would seek further
public input before setting a date for the transition from 12.5 to
6.25 kilohertz.
This should provide greater certainty to mission-critical communications users and aid in planning both for the transition in
2013 to 12.5 kilohertz and the eventual transition to 6.25 kilohertz as well. Ultimately, narrowbanding will provide greater
spectrum efficiency and increased spectrum availability to licensees facing increased congestion in certain spectrum bands.
In essence, it will cut down on interference, while at the same
time enabling more users to communicate on the band at one
time, thereby creating greater efficiency.
Haller: This is a critical, earth-shaking issue. Most licensees are
unaware that they must have narrowband systems deployed by
2013. Some who know about it think they can continue operating on a secondary basis. Some have been told they must go
digital. Between the lack of information and misinformation, Jan.
1, 2013, could be a disaster for end users and the FCC. The
Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) has asked the
FCC to begin an education campaign to alert licensees of the
new requirements and mandatory dates. I hope that will happen
soon. In the interim, industry trade associations and others
should make an effort to get the word out to all of their members
and licensees. 2013 is not that far away.
Derek Poarch
Former Chief
Public Safety and
Homeland Security
Bureau (PSHSB)
FCC
Ralph Haller
Consultant
Fox Ridge
Communications
Jill Lyon
Former Vice President
and General Council
Utilities Telecom
Council (UTC)
Lyon: For hundreds of utilities, the narrowbanding mandate is

the largest current wireless issue. While utilities have followed the relevant FCC
dockets for years, its now that telecom departments have to approach senior
management to explain that large amounts of money have to be spent to upgrade a radio system that works just fine as it is. This isnt an easy task at a
time when regulators are exerting extreme pressure to keep rates down, demand is going up along with fuel prices, and capital funding is extremely tight.
UTC is providing services to its members to help them explore all their land-
mobile options as they approach this process.

Knight: Its a good problem to have, yet still a problem. We have
users of medium-age to older VHF and UHF systems who have
already started planning to renew or expand their existing systems, while others are reviewing options for a band change to
700 or 800 MHz. This leaves the option to join existing networks
or collectively develop larger regional systems in either band.
From a spectrum efficiency standpoint, not to mention interoperability and enhanced wide-area operability, we should encourage participation in regional and statewide systems, promoting
fewer systems serving more users. As some licensees leave
VHF, we should consider this as an opportunity to more intelligently realign or repack the VHF spectrum. No easy task, I
know, but something public safety should not overlook.
Miller: The FCCs narrowbanding decision has forced some
agencies and entities with communications systems below 512
MHz to get serious about 2013. Racom has bid on, designed,
sold and installed a number of systems purchased specifically
because of the need to move from 25- to 12.5-kilohertz equivalency. More users are looking at and purchasing technologies
that completely bypass 12.5 kilohertz and are attempting to
move straight to 6.25 kilohertz, because they view that switch as
not far behind this one. While some users have actually planned
their narrowbanding migration and are executing that plan, we
have found a general lack of awareness and interest with respect to narrowbanding that we find disturbing as 2013 looms
large in the long-term budgeting processes of public entities.
Curt Knight
Former Executive Dir.
Public Safety
Communications
Commission
Arizona Department
of Public Safety
Mike Miller
President and CEO
Racom
Chris Fischer
Past President
APCO International
Fischer: The FCCs narrowbanding report and order (R&O) is affecting publicsafety communications by requiring agencies with older radios in bands below
512 MHz to plan for replacement by 2013. This is a significant challenge for
small- and medium-sized public-safety organizations that often find it difficult to
meet their normal operational and capital budget requirements.
Narrowbanding Drives
Digital Deployments
By Sandra Wendelken
The VHF and UHF narrowbanding mandate is looming for mission-critical communications
licensees. The FCC requires all
users in the VHF and UHF bands
to convert to narrowband operation
12.5-kilohertz channels by
Jan. 1, 2013. Thats about 2.5 years away, a short timeframe for mobile communications buying cycles.
According to a 2010 survey of MissionCritical Communications readers,
more than 68 percent said they are already compliant with the mandate or
will be by Jan. 1, 2013. Nearly 18 percent said theyre not sure if theyll meet
the deadline, and 7.4 percent said they wont be compliant by the deadline.
Mission-critical licensees arent required to move to digital technology under
the mandate. Although many licensees are finding that upgrading their networks with analog technology is adequate for their needs, others make the
case for reviewing the latest digital options before making an upgrade decision.
In addition to narrowbanding, licensees note several main catalysts for
moving to digital systems. First, most new digital technologies on the market
are cost effective, even for small networks. In addition, these technologies
offer advanced features that users dont get with analog systems. And for frequency-scarce geographic areas, the digital technologies allow users to do
more with the spectrum they already have.
Many users are taking advantage of the mandate to bring new features
and coverage to their legacy systems. In fact, the survey found that 42.5 percent of users are deploying digital networks, and another nearly 10 percent
are deploying hybrid networks when they upgrade their systems to meet the
narrowbanding mandate.
Advanced Features
Northern Neck Electric Cooperative (NNEC) in Warsaw, Va., serves the
83 I Narrowbanding Drives Digital Deployments
Virginia counties of King George, Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond,

Stafford and Westmoreland. The co-op has more than 18,360 residential and
commercial meters and total assets of nearly $72 million. NNEC maintains
more than 2,060 miles of overhead and underground lines that distribute
electricity from 19 substations to members homes and businesses.
In May 2009, the utility deployed a one-channel conventional IDAS system
from Icom America. IDAS is a digital 6.25-kilohertz FDMA-based technology
based on the NXDN platform jointly developed by Icom and Kenwood Communications. The company has 45 mobile radios deployed in fleet trucks, allowing NNEC to track truck locations.
We had to do something for the FCCs narrowbanding requirements, so I
wanted a plan that would give us a lot of bang for the buck, says Jim Moss,
NNEC vice president of operations. Our new system allows us to transmit
AVL over the radio system with a simple GPS receiver in all of our pick-ups
and service buckets. We can see our trucks locations on our map viewer
program. Anyone in our facility has access to the maps, and drivers can see
the maps if they have the map viewer enabled in the vehicle.
The biggest challenge with the new AVL technology was convincing field
workers that the company isnt monitoring them. Its a tool for us to be more
efficient in our operations, and its not used for being the eye in the sky,
Moss says.
The system also comprises 30 IDAS portable radios and a base repeater
with 150-watt amplifier, duplexer and power supply. There is one channel for
normal repeater operation and a second talk-around channel for truck-totruck communications. We have limited radio traffic here, so we didnt need
a trunked system. We needed a simple system that works, and AVL was a
real bonus, Moss says.
Another bonus for NNEC was the extra security of digital technologies. In
NNECs service area, personal scanners are prevalent. There are a lot of
ears out there, Moss says. If you have all these scanners, people can take
things that are said the wrong way. With the digitally encrypted network, the
scanner issue went away.
Another advantage of digital technology is the ability for a phased migration to the new network. NNECs base system was installed first, operating at
25 kilohertz in analog mode while the new mobile units were installed. The
mobiles were programmed to operate in analog and digital mode. Once installed, the co-op switched the mobile units to the new digital channel. At this
point, the base repeater automatically began operating in the digital mode at
6.25 kilohertz, and personnel began using the portable radios.
Border Complications
Spectrum availability was a key driver for the digital network deployed by
Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington, Vt. The facility includes three campuses; a main campus and university health center that are located within a
mile of each other and a third facility about 5 miles away. Burlington is only
37 miles from the Canadian border, which means Industry Canada approval
is needed for all license changes. Todd Goad, president and general manager of Burlington Communications, sold and installed a new digital system
for Fletcher. Goad says a big selling point was the new systems additional
capacity within the same channels, so new frequencies werent necessary.
Similar to most narrowband systems he deploys, Goad worked through a
frequency coordinator to add the narrowband emission designator to
Fletcher Allens license. In this case, I added the digital narrowband emission designator for voice and data. I specified 6.25 kilohertz, so I could get
the three channels in the same bandwidth that Fletcher used to occupy.
Industry Canada initially rejected the license change the first time it was
submitted, which Goad says is typical. They look at a frequency, and if
theres anybody within 100 kilometers of the border, Canada rejects it automatically, he says.
Goad developed engineering documentation and explained to Industry
Canada in a letter via the frequency coordinator that the change was for an
existing frequency previously licensed on wideband with Canadian serial
numbers. We werent changing our coverage footprint, and it went right
through the second time, Goad says.
Sometimes Industry Canada rejects a license a second or third time, and
the licensee then has to perform on-air testing. Ive had licenses take up to
three years, Goad says. This one took about four months. The fastest is one
month, but that doesnt happen very often.
After gaining the needed FCC and Industry Canada approvals, Goad installed a two-site NEXEDGE trunked system from Kenwood Communications with four channels at the Fletcher Allen main campus and three
channels at the second site. About 150 portables and six mobile radios operate on the network. Talk groups include a facilities group, along with security,
patient support, facilities grounds, couriers, valet service and parking garage
talk groups. NEXEDGE is also based on the NXDN platform.

Fletcher Allen already had bidirectional amplifiers (BDAs) in buildings, another reason to keep the same frequencies. Reusing spectrum provided a
cost savings, and coverage problems on the second campus were fixed by
adding a second site and using the current BDA technology.
The coverage is excellent, says Charlie Zea, manager of the security department for Fletcher Allen. Thats what we were most concerned about.
We previously had some challenges with our second facility site on the old
network.
Fletcher Allens analog system had four UHF frequencies, so by using
6.25-kilohertz channels, the adjacent channels can be used at Fletcher
Allens second facility. We were able to use the same four frequency pairs,
but now they can use the 6.25-kilohertz offset channels and stay within the
same bandwidth, Goad says. We now have three channels within one frequency a center channel with 6.25-kilohertz channels on each side of it.
Goad customized Fletcher Allens system by adding a telephone interconnect feature. I bought a private branch exchange (PBX) switch, tied it to the
control stations, similar to base stations on trunked groups. Only a couple of
groups needed telephone interconnect, he says. For those groups, if a landline caller wants a security guard, the caller gets a prompt to push one for
security, and the system patches the caller through to security.
Short-Term ROI
Cost savings has been the best byproduct of Holmes County, Ohios upgrade to digital technology to meet the narrowbanding mandate. The previous system relied on five towers to cover the county, but a new conventional
MOTOTRBO network from Motorola will require just two sites, reducing the
ongoing costs for rent, repeaters and site maintenance. MOTOTRBO technology is based on the Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) standard developed by
the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). DMR performs
with two TDMA channels in a 12.5-kilohertz channel width.
The county had a legacy VHF network, and the new system fulfills its narrowband requirements and adds data options. The countys 30 public works
vehicles each have MOTOTRBO radios installed, along with NeoTerra Systems AVL software. We can poll the GIS information via the radios, says
Erik Parker, geographic information system (GIS)/IT director, for Holmes
County. We can adjust the intervals on an individual basis. We can dial them
down to one second if we want to, and in some situations, we might do that.
During a snowstorm, for example, the county can post the locations of
snowplows on its website so the public can view in near real time where the
snowplows are. Some of the benefits are for our internal purposes, but from
a public-relations standpoint, citizens will know the trucks are out there and
that theyre helping, Parker says. That was important to our engineering department.
This summer the county plans to trial an application with wireless sensors
that control whether the plow is up or down and how its spreading the brine.
That information will be sent through the network to see how much is being
spread and at what rate. We can see how much money is being spent in
near real time, Parker says.
In addition, the county plans to integrate fire and EMS agencies onto the
system so dispatchers can see their locations. Each of the countys fire, EMS
and police vehicles has a mobile data terminal (MDT). Currently, dispatch
sends the information on a fire, for example, through a wireless broadband
network to the fire station. When the volunteer fireman gets in the fire engine,
the call location information is already in the MDT. But they dont have wireless connectively once they leave the fire station, Parker says. They must
hear new information over the radio and manually make the adjustment. In
the future, we plan to push the information through the digital network and
dump it into the MDT.
Parker says the applications are similar to what the county could do with
commercial broadband wireless services but without the $35 $50 monthly
service fees to a service provider. Some of the things arent cutting edge,
but it has to do with how we can do it more cost effectively, he says. The return on investment on one of these radios is a few years if you compare it to
having a wireless card with a commercial service. We have volunteer fire and
EMS departments, so we have to be more efficient.
The countys police department went live on the digital network in April for
voice communications, using both time slots for voice because the department has a commercial data service. Lets say we never use the data option, Parker says. We then have two separate channels for voice off of one
frequency.
Sandra Wendelken is editor of MissionCritical Communications magazine.

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

25-kilohertz and 12.5-kilohertz communications right now, and with a slight
change, well be ready for digital 6.25-kilohertz when thats finalized, Ragland
says. Compared to hardware-based tri-mode radios, were saving thousands
per radio. We wont have to replace or overhaul our radios again because we
have the flexibility to meet the latest NXDN standard as its developed.
Del Williams is a technical writer based in Torrance, Calif. E-mail comments

to editor@RRMediaGroup.com.
Combine your strengths.

Telewave transmitter combiners save valuable tower space and eliminate interference with
proven technology. As many as 14 transmitters can share the same antenna system, and
dual-band congurations such as 700 / 800 MHz can be provided. Hybrid combining techniques allow very close channel spacing, even adjacent channels if required.
Telewave combiners are custom-built on any frequency between 30 MHz and 960 MHz, and
are compatible with any narrow or wideband, analog or digital air interface including P25
Phase I and II. Duplexers, receiver multicouplers, preselectors, and power monitors can all
share the same rack.
Contact Telewave today for more information about our full line of wireless infrastructure
products, designed and manufactured in the USA.
San Jose, CA 1-800-331-3396 www.telewave.com
Section 5:
Funding
Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project, Rick Burke ..........................................93
Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements, Vince Siragusa .............98
Sponsored by
93 I Section 5: Funding
Sources to Fund
Your Narrowband Project
By Rick Burke
There is increasing urgency for operators of VHF
and UHF radio sites and networks to implement and
complete a radio narrowbanding program by Jan. 1,
2013. The FCC mandate requires licensees in the
VHF/UHF spectral band to move from 25-kilohertz
channels to 12.5-kilohertz channels. The scope of
individual narrowbanding projects will vary based on
the radio infrastructure assets in each network; however, each narrowbanding program requires a detailed program budget and the necessary funding to
drive it to completion funding that may not readily
exist for many licensees.
In an ideal environment, funding would be provided in conjunction with the
mandate to narrowband. However, in our unstable economic environment,
the prospect for federal and state grant narrowband funding is limited. Therefore, creative strategies to secure alternative sources of funding must be explored. Nongrant funding options are not guaranteed and will likely require
executive management support and perhaps the adoption of new legislation.
With critical emergency communications systems and FCC licenses that
support the communications networks at risk, urgent attention and a creative
funding plan are required. Beyond a grant or direct government capital
budget appropriation, the alternative funding options can be grouped into
four categories: 9-1-1 emergency service fees, surcharge fees, direct tax and
government bonds.
These alternative funding streams typically require local and/or state legislative support and approval. Therefore, a well-constructed plan to present
and sell the narrowband program and budget to executive oversight committees and legislatures is fundamental. Radio managers must secure support
from police and fire chiefs who present the case for narrowbanding to the
local and state executives and legislature to solicit their support. If these
conversations and presentations have not yet started, there is still time to de-
94 I Sources to Fund Your Narrowband Project
velop the narrowband implementation strategy and budget, but planning

needs to begin immediately.
9-1-1 emergency service fees. The 9-1-1 emergency service fee is an
important source of funding supporting a variety of critical public-safety
emergency requirements and initiatives. 9-1-1 fees should generally only be
used for 9-1-1 services, but the benefit of a one-time use for narrowbanding
radio equipment could be warranted in some jurisdictions.
The 9-1-1 fees are managed differently by states, counties and jurisdictions, and an understanding of how to use the fees is critical. A temporary allocation of 9-1-1 fees to cover narrowbanding costs is a reasonable means to
spend 9-1-1 fees, but gaining access to this funding source is typically
fraught with a spirited political struggle. Cellular emergency service fees are
not collected in all situations, and legislatures should consider pursuing them
where possible. With a migration away from landline phone services resulting
in declining 9-1-1 emergency fees, emergency fees should be considered for
consumer IP phone and Internet access.
Surcharge fees. The surcharge is a fee in addition to a levied tax. Of
course, the fee is also a tax masquerading as a surcharge fee. However, surcharges dont need to be permanent, and in the case of narrowbanding, a
surcharge could be added to hotel, entertainment, dining, transportation or
other purchases where the public is accustomed to such fees. The public typically tolerates the addition of a small percentage to a purchase cost, however, such fees require legislative approval, and in this economy, new fees
and taxes are difficult to obtain. The fee could potentially be imposed on visitors, who are also accustomed to local surcharges when traveling.
Direct tax. A tax is not an ideal means to gain public support and is considered by politicians as the kiss of death. However, a funding source for narrowbanding is necessary, and in the absence of federal/state grants for
which the funds were derived from a tax, a reallocation of taxes or a new tax
may be required. Ideally, the tax funding would constitute a reallocation of the
government budget from nonemergency spending. The public-safety emergency communications system certainly has higher priority than other lineitem spending, and during the program, a reallocation of funds can finance
the narrowband initiative.
Government bonds. Government bonds are a standard approach in various states and jurisdictions to fund programs of this magnitude. A full-scale
narrowband program could likely lead to a replacement of the existing emer-
gency radio communications network with a digital radio network, such as

Project 25 (P25) technology. Depending on the size and number of impacted
radio and base station infrastructure assets, the cost of the program could be
tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Bonds of this magnitude require legislative support and possibly referendum approval by citizens. The government bond approval timeframe is
lengthy and is typically put to vote during the annual November political voting process. A considerable effort to time the approval to coincide with the
standard voting schedule must be undertaken to pursue legislative support.
Based on the 2013 narrowband in-service mandate, special approvals in association with a waiver to extend narrowband implementation may be required. The waiver process is not trivial and does not guarantee FCC
approval, which should further motivate radio managers to develop a plan for
executive consideration.
Other Considerations
There are other narrowband funding and operational options to consider in
conjunction with the alternatives above or as standalone pursuits. These options vary from a lease/finance procurement preference to more creative options to consolidate communications onto common networks.
Equipment lease/vendor financing. In lieu of an outright purchase of
radio infrastructure, equipment vendors and interested third parties will provide a lease-to-own option or provide a low interest purchase option. The
purchase/lease agreement spreads the costs over a number of years of network operation. This option must satisfy applicable procurement requirements and obtain executive approval. Leasing and vendor financing solutions
have overall higher cost of ownership, but are reasonable options to address
near-term capital shortfalls.
Shared narrowband cost model. For radio operators that provide access
to multiple jurisdictions and other users to their networks, all users could
share narrowbanding capital costs under a mutually agreeable cost-sharing
economic model. Cost-share models are commonly based on the number of
users per agency/jurisdiction or based on population size per jurisdiction.
Consolidate regional radio operations. The narrowband program might
be an excellent opportunity to develop a large-area governance model and
integrate multiple jurisdictions and agencies onto a common radio network.
The common radio network can be designed to minimize the total number of
base station facilities as radio sites are designed to provide optimal coverage
and are not restricted by jurisdictional boundaries.
Additionally, network control/switching infrastructure can be limited to primary and remote backup facilities in lieu of network control facilities in every
jurisdiction. Nongovernment agencies can be integrated onto the network to
support capital construction requirements and ongoing user fees to purchase
and maintain the network. In conjunction with the wide-area radio network, a
consolidation of public-safety answering point (PSAP) or 9-1-1 call and dispatch operations into a single facility can reduce operational cost while preserving 9-1-1 services over the extended geography.
Subscribe to an existing radio network. Multiple radio networks could
be available within the boundaries of your jurisdictional coverage area, or
could be upgraded, and already operate at narrowband channel bandwidths.
County and statewide radio networks could accommodate local jurisdiction
or multiple county emergency communications requirements and are open to
local jurisdiction subscribers. While radio managers and first responders are
partial to operating a private radio network under their ownership, consolidating operations onto a common network that operates under equitable governance, ensuring capacity and quality of performance, can be cost effective
and enhance interoperability. Radios may need to be purchased or leased to
facilitate access to this network, along with special arrangements required to
direct traffic to the local PSAP. But these costs are significantly less than a
complete radio network replacement program. The opportunity also exists to
consolidate PSAPs over an extended regional geography to reduce individual PSAP operations and costs and share the consolidated PSAP operation
across the extended area.
In the absence of state and federal grant funding sources to drive the radio
network narrowbanding program, system managers and affected publicsafety agency and government executives need to pursue alternative funding
and/or operational models to protect radio channel licensing, FCC regulatory
requirements, and most importantly, to ensure that mission-critical radio
communications are not impacted.
The FCCs narrowband deadline is only months away, and while waivers to
extend the deadline can be prepared, they will require valid justification. The
FCC has indicated that there are no acceptable options to indefinitely delay
channel narrowbanding operations. Therefore, operators need to be creative
in their pursuit of alternative funding and radio operations solutions. A comprehensive program plan and narrowband budget must be developed to support the funding objectives, and this aspect of the program cant be further
delayed. Once completed, the plan will provide the foundation to pursue an
optimal funding source to complete the program.
Rick Burke is managing partner at Televate and has more than 30 years of
engineering and system operations experience with complex communications networks and applications. Email comments to rburke@televate.com.
98 I Section 5: Funding
Federal Grant Options for

Narrowbanding Procurements
By Vince Siragusa
As the clock continues to tick toward full implementation of the
FCCs narrowbanding mandate,
many government communications
personnel find themselves focusing
on identifying next steps in their
public-safety communications
plans. Narrowbanding calls for each VHF and UHF LMR system using 25-kilohertz wideband channels to comply with a channel refarming, which requires
technologies to provide 12.5-kilohertz equivalency.
The goal of channel width reduction is to allow government agencies to take
advantage of more efficient technology, as well as allow additional channels to
exist within the same spectrum. Previous 25-kilohertz channel licensees will
not automatically receive two 12.5-kilohertz channels to replace the old configuration. Through an FCC application process, licensees must justify a need for
a second channel under a new or modified narrowband license. Exploring and
identifying actionable steps now will help mitigate any number of issues that
will arise Jan. 1, 2013. Any agency, large or small, not narrowband compliant
by 2013 faces the imminent loss of licensed communications capabilities.
Each year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) presents a list of
eight national priorities in its national preparedness guidelines. These priorities
and guidelines are intended to advise various stakeholders in a coordinated effort to meet the nations most urgent needs. Recognizing that interoperable
communications has historically been a huge gap for many first responders,
strengthen interoperable and operable communications capabilities will likely
continue to be a key component of those eight national priorities.
For many cash-strapped state and local governments, achieving full communications is hampered less by a lack of technology options than by a lack of
funding to support those upgrades. Fortunately, governments at both the state
and federal level are aware of the various network and equipment needs facing
many of the countrys public-safety departments. For entities that can present
99 I Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements
their needs in conjunction with a well-planned programmatic approach to

achieving their goals, grant programs are available to facilitate the narrowbanding compliance process. In this sense, narrowbanding isnt completely an unfunded mandate.
For agencies not in a position to fund their entire communications needs
from existing resources, grant funding can supplement whats available locally.
Below is a short reference of some of the communications-friendly grant programs available from the federal government.
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). Of the DHS programs, the
SHSP is likely the broadest in scope and most far-reaching in its impact of a
variety of state, local and tribal homeland-security partners. The program supports terrorism preparedness by building, or in many cases enhancing, various
capabilities that relate to the prevention and response to terrorism. Fortunately,
many capabilities that support terrorism preparedness simultaneously support
preparedness for other all hazards such as natural disaster, public safety and
emergency management. Communications network infrastructure and enduser devices would be appropriate here. Potential applicants may want to think
about developing a regional project instead of a strictly local-level initiative.
Contact your state administrative agency (SAA) for additional information and
next steps at www.fema.gov/government/grant/saa/index.shtm.
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS). This program provides
grants to 124 individually identified jurisdictions to support local emergency
management, health and medical systems to develop a coordinated local response capability. Solutions involving continuation of operations in the aftermath of an emergency and interoperable communications are appropriate
here.
Operation Stonegarden Program (OPSG). This DHS program provides
$60 million for security of U.S. borders international maritime borders as
well as those bordering Mexico and Canada. OPSG is designed to enhance
coordination among federal, state and local law enforcement. Programmatic
support would include funding interoperable communications projects for those
responsible for the security of U.S. borders.
Justice Assistance Grants (JAG). This Department of Justice (DOJ)
program provides multiple funding avenues for grant support. Forty percent of
the JAG funds available are provided directly to large municipalities based on a
Bureau of Statistics formula using variables such as population and part one
violence crime statistics. The JAG programs allowance for local spending
100 I Federal Grant Options for Narrowbanding Procurements
discretion makes this a prime program for local-level communications efforts.

The remaining 60 percent of the total JAG money will make its way to each
state. States will retain a portion of this money for state-level activities, but are
also required to pass through a pre-determined percentage to local applicants.
Contact your JAG state administrative agency (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
saa/index.htm) for additional information on this pass-through process and
timeline.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG). The program provides financial assistance directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations. Grant
support is offered in an effort to enhance various capabilities with respect to
fire-related hazards. The AFG supports three individual application categories
with areas of giving ranging from turnout gear and vehicles to regional communications initiatives. In addition to providing funding for individual communications equipment, the program will also support communications network needs
such as trunked radio systems, wireless technologies and other creative communications projects that support interoperability. Additional information is available at www.firegrantsupport.com.
In recent years, governmental grant makers have increased their efforts and
financial assistance for various communications projects. In turn, that focus has
gone a long way in opening some new funding opportunities for interoperability
that meet FCC compliance requirements. As homeland-security and publicsafety efforts continue to evolve, this trend will undoubtedly continue into fiscalyear (FY) 2012 and beyond. While agencies like the FCC and National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are providing the
architectural plans for communications advancement, government organizations may want to explore these and other grant programs for assistance with
actual network buildouts.
Vincent Siragusa is a grants development consultant for the Rochester,

N.Y.-based Grants Office. Founded in 2000, Grants Office provides innovative grants development services that enable corporations, municipalities
and nonprofit organizations to maximize their grant initiatives. Siragusa
consults on grant submissions for a variety of municipalities and publicsafety organizations across the country and regularly makes grant-related
presentations with a focus on public safety and homeland security.
Additional information is available at www.grantsoffice.com. Contact
Siragusa at vsiragusa@grantsoffice.com.
s
s
e
l
m
Narrowband
a
e
S
Radio Coverage
AUDIO
FREQUENCY
VOTING
Manual audio delay allows simulcast phasing adjustments in

1.0 microsecond steps.
Delay can be installed at transmit sites and remotely controlled by dtmf tones or
centralized at the main site. It
can be ordered with line equalization if all link types are not
the same.
Carrier frequency must be

ultra-accurate, so simulcast
transmitters are typically
locked to GPS Master Oscillators with 10 MHz (or 5
MHz) outputs, which keeps
transmitter frequency within
0.1 Hz of other sites. CTCSS
(= PL = CG) outputs locked to
GPS assure synchronization
between sites.
Analog audio from multiple

receive sites is brought to a
voter comparator. The signals
are continuously compared, and
the best quality signal is sent to
the dispatcher and repeated out
over the air. Voter supports
2175 Hz / 1950 Hz / or E&M
unsquelch indication.
GPS Aligned delay is required

for telco T1, loop microwave,
IP, or SONET interconnect and
automatically compensates for
any changes in path "length".
Manual Delay
Automatic Delay
Audio Distribution
For improved holdover when

GPS lock is lost, a GPS/Rb
version is available.
GPS Master Oscillators
A voter monitoring system can

be connected if the comparator
is located at a remote transmit
site.
Voter Comparator
Voter Monitor
On-line Case Studies

and Application Notes
simulcastsolutions.com
585.223.4927 tel
In Phase & On Frequency
18 Port Meadow Trail

Fairport, NY 14450
Section 6:
Industry Research
Reader Survey: 80% Plan to Meet Narrowbanding Deadline................................103
Do Most Narrowbanding Projects Include Digital? ................................................105
NPSTC: Most Licensees Need Additional Equipment...........................................106
APCO Tracks Narrowband Licenses by State .......................................................107
Public Safety Ahead of Business/Industrial Licensees..........................................108
Sponsored by
103 I Section 6: Industry Research
Reader Survey: 80% Plan to Meet

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

a Narrowbanding Upgrade, Why?
Snapshot
Survey
41.1%
We dont have the money

We are moving to a
different frequency band
16.4%
We dont think the FCC will monitor

systems that arent compliant
1.4%
16.4%
We have other higher priorities

We dont operate a VHF or UHF network
24.7%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage of Respondents
Does Your Narrowband

Network Include
Digital Technology?
Snapshot
Survey
Its a
hybrid
network
8.9%
We dont operate
a VHF or UHF
network
5.1%
Yes
42.1%
No
43.9%
Will Interference
between Narrowband
and Non-Narrowband
Systems Be a Problem?
Yes, in the
long term
14.6%
Snapshot
Survey
Not sure
24.4%
No
27.1%
Yes, in the
short term
33.9%
Do Most Narrowbanding
Projects Include Digital?
More than 40 percent of
Is Your Narrowband Network Digital?
MissionCritical Communications
Private-Safety Users
readers will deploy digital
Yes
45%
27%
technology during their VHF and
Snapshot
Survey
UHF narrowbanding projects.
No
29.5%
Its
a
hybrid
network
Private-safety users, including
14%
utilities, transportation agencies
and business/industry licensees,
0
10
20
30
40
50
have a slightly higher digital
technology deployment percentIs Your Narrowband Network Digital?
age (45 percent) compared with
Public-Safety Users
public-safety users surveyed
Yes
41%
27%
(41 percent).
Snapshot
Survey
No
About 10 percent of public39%
Its
a
hybrid
network
safety readers said they operate
10%
hybrid networks that include both
0
10
20
30
40
50
analog and digital technology,
while nearly 14 percent of
private-safety readers have hybrid systems.
Several mobile communications digital options are available to licensees
looking to upgrade their networks to meet the FCCs narrowbanding deadline
of Jan. 1, 2013. In addition to Project 25 (P25) used mainly by public-safety
users, mission-critical communications licensees are also deploying the
Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) standard, NXDN systems and other digital technologies. In addition, the FCC recently granted partial approval of a waiver
request that will allow products conforming to the TETRA digital standard
to be available for U.S. business, industrial and transport sectors in the
450 470 MHz band.
About 71 percent of respondents are already compliant with the mandate
or in the process of upgrading their networks to meet the deadline.
NPSTC: Most Licensees

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

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

Business/Industrial Licensees
Motorola Solutions conducted a survey of its customers, said Chuck
Jackson, Motorola Solutions vice president of North America government
and commercial markets. The Motorola survey found 163,000 licensees
and 249,000 call signs that still require narrowbanding. Of that call sign
number, about one-third (77,000) who need to narrowband are public-safety
licensees, and 70 percent (172,000) are business/industrial licensees.
In response to a question asking respondents if they are aware of the
mandate, 16 percent said they are unaware of it. Another 15 percent said
they are aware of the mandate but dont have plans in place to address it.
About 44 percent said they are aware and have plans in place, and 25 percent said they are already compliant with the mandate.
More public-safety licensees are aware of the mandate and have met it
or have plans to meet it (84 percent) than business/industrial licensees (59
percent), according to the Motorola results to date.
Sponsors
The following sponsors have made it possible for you to download VHF and UHF
Narrowbanding: Your Complete Guide to Meet the Deadline FREE of charge. They
provide products and services that can help you achieve your narrowbanding
objectives. We encourage you to click on their logos to contact them directly if you
are in need of their narrowbanding solutions.
Aeroflex is a leading worldwide provider of highly specialized test
and measurement equipment and microelectronic solutions. Our
customers have complex, high-performance requirements and are
predominantly found in the aerospace, defense, wireless mobile,
broadband communications and advanced manufacturing markets.
Founded in 1937 and now with 2,950 employees worldwide, Aeroflex
has developed substantial intellectual property through decades of
collaborative design, manufacturing, R&D and service experience
with customers.
Tusa Consulting Services is a Public Safety Consultant specializing
in Radio Systems. We provide:
Land-Mobile Radio Engineering
VHF-UHF Refarming
Narrowbanding/Rebanding
Radio System Design
Microwave Radio
Needs Assessment Studies
Existing-System Suitability
Radio Coverage Modeling

Conceptual System Design
Specification Development
Proposal Evaluation Services
Administration Assistance
Maintenance Planning
FCC Narrowbanding Waiver Service
Telewave is an ISO 9001:2008 certified US manufacturer of over

2000 standard and custom radio system products, available in
frequency bands between 30 and 3000 MHz. Our customers include
wireless system operators, public safety providers, local and state
governments, and federal agencies. Telewave systems are fully compatible with narrowbanding and all digital waveforms including P25
Phase I and II. Since 1972, Telewave has focused on the needs of
our customers, providing the finest American made radio system
products, and the quickest on-time delivery record in the industry.
Survey Technologies, Incorporated was founded in 1991 to improve
and automate the acquisition, analysis and display of signal measurements across a given terrain. STI provided signal survey services
to several major telecom companies in 1992 and 1993, utilizing
early models of the STI-9000. These activities provided an ideal test
bench, pointing the way to further product improvements leading
to the NEW STI Field Test 7 software package and the STI-9400
and STI-9450 mobile signal measurement and coverage analysis
systems. Measurement capabilities for both 25 kHz and Narrowband
signals include SINAD, Bit-Error-Rate, and signal strength.
Kenwood NEXEDGE supports both analog and digital

deployment with advanced features, including fulltrunked IP
network operation, expanded coverage and secure digital voice
and data communications. NEXEDGE operates in both 6.25 and
12.5 kHz digital channels and 25 and 12.5 kHz analog channels,
allowing for migration to narrowband on your schedule.
Simulcast Solutions LLC has provided reliable field-proven

GPS Master Oscillators, Audio Delay Subsystems, Audio Booster
Limiters and Voting Technologies to narrowband and wideband land
mobile radio simulcast systems since the mid-90s. Ed OConnor
founded Simulcast Solutions to provide technical guidance and
one-stop-shopping to end users, dealer/integrators, and OEMS
who want to implement clearer and more cost-effective public
safety simulcast radio systems.

Vhf-Uhf Narrowbanding Guide 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vhf-Uhf Narrowbanding Guide 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VHF and UHF

2012 By Pandata Corp. All Rights Reserved.

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Why do leading police departments

"We have had remarkable success with the Kenwood NEXEDGE

Agencies with NEXEDGE radios across the

Scan with your phone for NEXEDGE

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

6 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Crunch Time: Deadline

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

7 I Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

8 I Crunch Time: Deadline Less Than a Year Away

Kunkle said a licensee does not necessarily need an attorney to request

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

9 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

10 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

11 I Narrowbanding Brings FCC Processing Delays

Wesley K. Wright is an associate at Keller and Heckman. Wright joined Keller

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

12 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Ralph A. Haller served as chief of the FCCs Private Radio Bureau

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

13 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

14 I Section 1: Policy and Regulatory

Frequently Asked Questions

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Answer: The GMRS, regulated

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Photo courtesy Kenwood

15 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

16 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

Answer: After Jan. 1, 2013, licensees may operate with an authorized

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

17 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

18 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

19 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

20 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

no 25-kilohertz capability and the previous version is no longer sold.

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

21 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

22 I Frequently Asked Questions Answered by FCC Officials

MissionCritical Communications I VHF and UHF Narrowbanding

Verify Wireless Coverage.

he narrowband transition is expected

With STI Field Test 7 you can benchmark

your current wireless systems

coverage and signal quality in

signal coverage and quality, and

larger communications systems

conrm the coverage and quality

regardless of whether or not you

of your narrowband signal, taking

are using the narrowband

the guess-work out of your