Facilitating Interoperability & Encouraging Competition

THE P25 SUITE OF STANDARDS PROVIDES BENCHMARKS FOR OPERABILITY & RELIABILITY

BY JAN NOORDHOF

August 2012

www.apcointl.org // August 2012 // Public Safety Communications

www.apcointl.org // August 2012 // Public Safety Communications

APCO Project 25 (P25) is a continuing story of cooperation to overcome barriers while striving for interoperable technology. P25 goes well beyond a standard that enables public safety agencies to communicate and work together. It also seeks to guarantee that radio communications equipment is benchmarked for reliability and public safety operability, and is future-proofed and, above all, cost effective. THE ORIGINS P25 had its birth in 1989 in the U.S. when public safety representatives, regulators and manufacturers, under the aegis of the APCO International and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), engaged in a collaborative effort to develop a suite of standards for digital public safety communications. When the first P25 standards appeared in 1995, they represented a new benchmark for interoperable communications, designed by and for public safety users. The standards have continued to evolve as the ambitious program has been fleshed out and new requirements added. Throughout the project, the overarching goals for P25 have been to ensure interoperability among vendors, agencies and networks, to encourage competition between manufacturers and to offer easier migration paths from analog to digital communication. The original Phase 1 P25 suite defines digital radio communication in 12.5 kHz channels. Phase 2 provides better use of spectrum, enabling twice as many channels to communicate in the same 12.5 kHz band. APCOs primary goal was to facilitate interoperability, to allow multiple vendors radios to work together, multiple agencies to work together and neighboring agency networks to work together. But how successfully has P25 met the interoperability objective? P25 TODAY Despite issues along the way, today P25 does represent the most advanced and best tested digital radio open standard for public safety, and it has the support of the largest consortium of manufacturers. UNDERSTANDING THE BARRIERS P25 defines a range of standardized system interfaces: Common Air Interface (CAI) standard interfaces for radios to communicate over the air; Console Subsystem Interface (CSSI)standard interfaces for connecting consoles to a P25 network; and Inter RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI)standard interfaces for connecting P25 networks together for data, mobile data terminals and fixed stations. The standards also prescribe how to perform network management, implement and manage standardized encryption, and more. However, given that P25 Phase 1 standards are largely complete, why isnt interoperability between different vendors radio equipment automatically ensured?

www.apcointl.org // August 2012 // Public Safety Communications

FLEXIBILITY The P25 standards allow some flexibility. Under P25, radio features fall into one of three categories: Mandatory features: P25 features that must be implemented, exactly as prescribed by the TIA 102 specifications. Standard options: optional features that, if offered by a manufacturer, must be built to the TIA 102 specifications Manufacturers extensions: optional manufacturer-specific features that lie outside the P25 standard. INTERPRETATION In spite of concerted efforts to make the standards tight and explicit, conflicting interpretations are possible. Example: A feature such as Failsoft requires not-yetstandardized supporting features to make it work. If each vendor implements these features differently, then the Failsoft function depends on a proprietary implementation. Thus, one vendors Failsoft wont work with another vendors technology. CONFIGURATION MISMATCH PMR radios tend to provide a variety of adjustable internal parameter settings. These are generally set to the most useful defaults at the time of manufacture. However the parameters on radios are frequently modified by end users to achieve local performance requirements. Interoperability issues frequently arise when these radios are asked to move onto a neighboring network. Problems can arise whenever reconfigured radios roam into networks to which their settings are not matched. Tempting as it may be to blame the standard, user settings are often a problem. USABILITY DIFFERENCES Often radios work differently (perform certain functions in different ways) simply because they were designed differently. Usability is vendor-specific and is not governed by P25 standards. One of the major headaches for vendors seeking approval to operate on a statewide network is that the Network Certification Tests are based on existing radio functionality and not on the P25 standards themselves. These tests are frequently designed around the states experience of one or two particular radios. If some proprietary functionality (e.g., proprietary encryption) is specified as a prerequisite for network access, this is a major obstacle to interoperability.

www.apcointl.org // August 2012 // Public Safety Communications

THE CAP PROGRAM The P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) is a U.S. government initiative to define what it means to be P25 compliant. The program has created a standardized conformance test framework for manufacturers equipment, which is implemented at government-certified P25 CAP testing labs. When tests are completed, vendors can post results as Suppliers Declaration of Compliance (SDoCs) and Summary Test Reports (STRs) on the Responders Knowledge Base (RKB) website at www.rkb.us. P25 CAP testing, however diligently performed, does have some major limitations: It guarantees a minimal level of interoperability and is only as good as the completeness and quality of the tests. Like the P25 standards themselves, CAP is evolving as new requirements are added. P25 CAP interoperability testing covers all mandatory features but only some standard options. P25 CAP cant guarantee coverage or performance because these depend on many factors, including the engineering specifications of the radio itself.

www.apcointl.org // August 2012 // Public Safety Communications

Nevertheless, the P25 CAP represents a detailed, well-supported and vendor-neutral yardstick of interoperability that has been embraced by a number of manufacturers who have willingly invested time and effort to test each others equipment. LOOKING FORWARD Completion of P25 Phase 1 standards and the development of the CAP testing program mean that P25 radio technology is at last beginning to deliver the reliability, interoperable functionality and cost-effectiveness it originally promised. The road to real interoperability is a difficult one that newer technologies, such as LTE, will be cautious to enter. More likely, they will find it easier to complement P25 with enhanced data services, rather than revisit or replace the P25 experience. |PSC|

JAN NOORDHOF is principal consultant for Tait Communications (Americas), specializing in technical solutions, and is based in New Zealand/ Houston, Texas.

www.apcointl.org // August 2012 // Public Safety Communications