Radio interoperability effort is old enough to drink

Lack of standards leave public safety agencies at the mercy of vendors

Delays in finalizing the Project 25 suite of interoperability standards for public safety radios is stifling competition and forcing agencies to use expensive, proprietary systems that do not allow agencies to talk with one another, witnesses told a House panel recently.

Representatives from government and industry testifying before the House Science and Technology Committee's Technology and Innovation Subcommittee urged the government to press for quick completion of the full suite of P25 standards and to implement a testing and compliance program to ensure full interoperability.

It was the second hearing held this year by the subcommittee on Project 25, a 21-year-old effort to develop standards that would let police, firefighters and other first responders communicate across departmental and jurisdictional lines by using equipment from various manufacturers. To date, only the Command Air Interface and portions of the Inter-RF-Subsystem Interface have been completed. The more complex, trunked CAI continues to lack conformance test documents. The remaining six interfaces are in various states of document completion.


Related stories:

Why the march to interoperable radios is so slow

21 years later, public safety networks still can’t talk to each other


P25-trunked radio systems have been sold for 10 years, but there are no tests available for interoperability, which locks users in to single-vendor solutions, said Tom Sorley, deputy director of radio communication services at the Houston Information Technology Department.

Although attention is being focused on creating a national broadband public safety network that would carry video and data traffic, voice over land mobile radios still is the backbone of public safety communications. The need to make those radios interoperable led to the creation of Project 25 in 1989.

Sorley said the standards-making process is being driven by industry rather than the public safety community because vendors have the resources and manpower to devote to the process. That puts agencies at a disadvantage because they often do not have the ability to evaluate the real-world interoperability of P25-compliant products.

Meanwhile, the lack of completed standards has not stopped deployment of P25 networks. Russ Sveda, manager of the Interior Department’s Radio Technical Service Center, said the department adopted P25 as the standard for its far-flung agencies in 1996 and has had to design and integrate its own systems and develop its own interoperability testing program for components. Conformance and interoperability have improved in recent years, he said.

“Since 2002, we have seen a drastic improvement in products and the number of vendors,” Sveda said. Still, “the slow pace of the P25 standards has created some frustration in the radio user community.”

About the Author

William Jackson is freelance writer and the author of the CyberEye blog.

Reader Comments

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 MStewart Seattle

As promising as the idea behind P25 is, the fact remains that if and when it comes to full fruition, buckets of money will be needed to replace hardware. Why bother, when RoIP software like WAVE already effectively does the job with existing equipment? If half the energy spent on P25 was shifted to investigating software solutions that already enable RoIP, we’d probably be all the way there.

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 SensorGuy CTO CONUS

"Slow pace"? More like GLACIAL. The cost of P25 systems and their inferiority when compared to MPT1327 systems only a few years back forced me as a 911 systems architect to use an MPT1327 system and provide P25 gateways to be available whenever the feds came up with a stable and cost effective standard. The P25 project has certainly been nothing but a disappointment to those that have to deliver.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above