comms presentation[1]

ON 28 APRIL, 1992NO ONE REALLY CARED ABOUT

COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY

RODNEY KING RIOTS, LOS ANGELES, CA 4/29/1992

ON 10 SEPTEMBER, 2001NO ONE REALLY CARED

ABOUTCOMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY

WORLD TRADE CENTER, NYC, 9/11/2001

ON 24 DECEMBER, 2004NO ONE REALLY CARED


MEGA-TSUNAMI, INDONESIA 12/26/2004

ON 28 AUGUST, 2005NO ONE REALLY CARED


HURRICANE KATRINA, NEW ORLEANS, LA 8/29/2005

ON 26 NOVEMBER, 2008NO ONE REALLY CARED


TERRORIST ATTACKS, MUMBAI, INDIA 11/27/2008

ON 11 JANUARY, 2010NO ONE REALLY CARED ABOUT


7.0 MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE, HAITI, 1/12/2010

IN EACH OF THESE INCIDENTS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

FAILED THE FIRST RESPONDERS

Why?

D. M. McGaughey, CPP, CAS, CI Special Agent (Ret.) [email protected]

INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPATIBILITY OF FIRST

RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS FAILED

DHS, 2/2009

THE FOLKS ON THE SCENE COULDN’T TALK TO EACH OTHER


The vast majority of emergency responders are limited in their ability to communicate and collaborate with each other. They are unable to communicate with command, support teams and other responding organizations present at an incident scene. In 2008, almost 7 years after the tragic lessons learned by 9/11, the majority of emergency response organizations (ERO) do not have the basic capability for any of their team members to establish communications at an incident site. They may have to wait hours for large trucks and/or trailers with very expensive and complicated communications equipment delivered to the site. In the case of a catastrophic incident causing a scorched earth environment, it may take days to get the necessary equipment and communication support personnel to the incident site.

National Emergency Response Interoperability Framework and Resilient Communication System of Systems, DHS, 2/2009

It is not only the complexity and cost of existing systems that inhibit NIMS compliance; most systems often render previous technology investments obsolete or require a need for costly upgrades to legacy systems proving impractical or unaffordable.

DHS, FEB 2009

WRONG!

THESE GUYS JUST HAVEN’T THOUGHT “INSIDE THE BOX”


SO - -HOW DO WE FIX THIS?


WE FIX THIS BY GOING TO THE

COMMON DENOMINATOR OF THE FIRST RESPONDER

TEAM

The Hand-Held Radio – “the Brick”


USING THE FIRST RESPONDER’S RADIO

FREQUENCY - WE SIMPLY KEY EVERY OTHER

COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE TO IT

AND BINGO – YOU HAVE INTEROPERABILITY

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE


• 700 MHz• 800 MHz• 900 MHz

• UHF/VHF• PTT/iDEN• P25/Tetra

Input data files are fully documented and NIMS/ICS compliant

PTT

Analog Phone

PDF

Video

Text

Data

Digital Phone

COMMUNICATIONSINTEROPERABILITY

NO NEW EQUIPMENT REQUIRED

NO UPGRADE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED

ANY MAKE, MODEL, MANUFACTURER OR FREQUENCY

VOICE, DATA, VIDEO INTEGRATIOND. M. McGaughey, CPP, CAS, CI Special Agent (Ret.) [email protected]

ENCRYPTION AND SECURITY

2,048 BIT, FIPS COMPLIANT ENCRYPTION


SCALEABILITY & SIMPLICITY

STACKABLE GATEWAYS 4 ADAPTORS/GATEWAYUNLIMITED LOCATIONS LOCAL COUNTY STATE NATIONAL GLOBALMULTIPLE HOSTS NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL

ANY DEVICE

ANY ACCESS

ANY NETWORK

ANY CONTROL


IT REALLY IS SIMPLE - -


ONCE YOU START THINKING “INSIDE THE BOX”


comms presentation[1]

Business

ci special

communications

incident site

interoperability

systems

box

cas

dhs