1. TETRA Experience – Poland Public Safety Shared Networks Kees Verweij ISC/C2000

2. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Background and involvement in TETRA  ISC: involved in TETRA since the early start in 1990 –Myself: representing the Netherlands in Operator/User Association,Technical Forum and ETSI TCTETRA  C2000 project in the Netherlands: country-wide shared TETRA network for Police, Fire brigade, Ambulance and Military Police

3. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Agenda  How it starts (in the Netherlands)  Pros and cons of a Shared Network  Consequences  The choices to make  NL, Fin, B and UK experience  Summary and conclusions

4. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland How it starts (in the Netherlands)  The old situation in the Netherlands: –>100 small analogue Public Safety radio networks using >1600 sites in total In 1 area 7 or more separate Public Safety radio networks –Growing user demand for: Enhanced features (status, AVLS, mobile data applications) Cooperation with other Public Safety organisations Cooperation with other areas Higher security More capacity  Police and fire brigade developed a plan for their own, separate national digital trunking system

5. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland How it starts (in the Netherlands)  Political decision: Their will be one, shared PS radio network: C2000 –Will be built and operated under responsibility of the government –Should cover the user requirements of Ambulance Police Fire Brigade Military police

6. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The benefits of sharing  Operational –Common and enhanced functionality, coverage and security –Possibilities for closer cooperation and new procedures Multi-disciplinary fleetmap Common control rooms Cross border operation  Economics –One network built and managed by a dedicated organisation (“Policemen should be out on the street catching criminals”) –Larger volumes  Lower prices for radios –High network capacity to the users (trunking efficiency)  Environment –Lower number of base stations sites

7. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Perceived disadvantages of sharing  Tied to the operator: no direct influence on –Functionality –Coverage –Reliability  Security –Other users –Operator  Capacity –Guarantee during large incidents

8. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Overcoming disadvantages  Before roll-out: –To ensure that user requirements are met by the network: User organisations should be involved in setting the requirements for the network –The user organisations should closely work together on: A national fleetmap structure including talkgroup priority settings  After roll-out –To ensure that the operator performs: User organisations should be represented in the political body controlling the operator  To fully exploit the possible advantages users should work on: –Common radio procurement providing a frame contract –Common control room procurement?

9. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The consequences  Big investment: –High profile political environment Media attention External audits –Extra requirements: Should be future proof Should enable international cooperation? Common control rooms?  Many parties with different backgrounds involved –High complexity

10. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The consequences  Higher requirements –cost explosion –extra delay  Develop a procedure between central government and users to define and weigh the user requirements

11. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The choices to make: Potential Sharers  Decision on permitted sharers dependent on National Governments and importance of national response to a major disaster or emergency –Emergency Services –Government organisations –Military –Utilities –Transport –Others

12. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The choices to make: Operator models  Government Operator –Dedicated organisation Pro:flexibility for adding coverage, capacity, new functionality Con: efficiency?, technical challenge  Commercial Operator –Long term detailed contract with professional commercial organisation Pro:clear responsibility Con:long term commitment?, less direct influence on coverage, capacity, new functionality

13. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The choices to make: Fee/Cost Structure  How to split/differentiate between organisations Same price for primary users and secondary users? –Number of radios –Usage of the network  Different cost structures: –Monthly fee per radio/user organisation Pro: Stimulates the operator to perform Con: Users may hesitate to use the new network –Central budget Pro: Stimulates the users to use the new network Con: The operator may not perform and become inefficient  Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for use of network –Clear agreement on operator performance –(Monthly) reports showing network performance and actual usage

14. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland The Netherlands Experience  Main organisations: Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulance, Military police –25 multi-disciplinary control rooms –>20 other Public Safety related organisations have limited access under responsibility of one of the main organisations  Government operator, central budget  Highlights: –During the project Ambulance and Firebrigade have strongly improved their organisation structure –Successful large scale multi-disciplinary disaster training in April 2006

15. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Belgium Experience  Network was built for more than 15 organisations, including: –Ambulance –Fire brigade –Customs  Semi-government operator, monthly fee  Highlights: –In the procurement 20 parties from 7 Ministries were involved –It has been hard to level the requirements of all the parties

16. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Finnish Experience  Network built for wide user community, currently more than 20 different organisations, including: –Police –Fire and Rescue service –Frontier Guard –Military –Social and Health service –Municipalities  Government operator, monthly fee  Highlights: –Operational since 2002 –Common control rooms

17. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland UK Experience  Network was built for Police  Commercial operator, monthly fee  Highlights: –No participation from Fire brigade and Ambulance in beginning –Common sense prevailed and both Ambulance and Fire chose to be a subscriber to Airwave –Next step: sharing common control rooms

18. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Polish experience?  Who will be the users of a Public Safety TETRA network in Poland?

19. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Common causes for historical problems  Emergency services have a different background and different organisation structures –government departments –Area –Financing model –Organisation grade –Operational need –Level of technical knowledge.. which make it hard to work together on a project  High media attention can introduce extra project complexity

20. June 2006TETRA Experience - Poland Summary & Conclusions  Building a national Shared Public Safety Network –has many advantages to the users and the government –the possible disadvantages can be handled –is complex (mainly organisational)  Successful examples in B, Fin, NL and UK  A successful project for a Shared Network depends on getting and keeping all parties involved!

21. Thank You!! Questions??