A Los Angeles Times analysis of more than 1 million dispatches from the department’s database found that the Fire Department falls far short of the standard that rescue units be alerted within one minute on 90 percent of 911 calls, the newspaper reported.

Moreover, average call processing time has increased, notably for medical calls, which account for the majority of responses, according to The Times. Five years ago, firefighters were dispatched to medical calls within a minute 38 percent of time, the Times analysis found. By 2011, that number dropped to only 15 percent.

The Times also found that in the more than 250,000 medical dispatches last year, the department took 75 percent longer, on average, than the national standard.

City Hall leaders were stunned in March when the department admitted that for years it published statistics showing crews arrived at medical emergencies more quickly than they actually did. Revised department figures showed slower response times, well short of national standards and the department’s stated goals.

But even those numbers were challenged this week by an expert brought in by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who warned that the corrected figures were unreliable. Those issues related only to how many minutes and seconds it takes rescuers to arrive on a scene after they receive an alarm from the dispatch center.

But The Times analysis published today found another significant shortcoming in what experts say is an equally important performance indicator: The time it takes dispatchers to send firefighters to emergencies.

Fire Department officials did not respond to questions about its call handling times.

City Controller Wendy Greuel planned to release later this morning the findings of her audit of the Fire Department’s incident response times.

Source: City News Service via http://www.dailynews.com/

The Ocean Rescue program is operated by the Special Enforcement Bureau’s Emergency Services Detail. These deputies are all trained Special Weapon Team members, divers and paramedics.

The program was designed to provide a maritime LASD homeland security presence covering the 80 miles of Los Angeles County coast and the over 800 square miles of open ocean within Los Angeles County, including the islands of Catalina and San Clemente. The homeland security boat is also capable of providing emergency medical services and conducting disaster, chemical/biological detection and mitigation and dive operations.

The homeland security boat was constructed from the ground up to suit LASD’s homeland security requirements. It is a one of a kind vessel, built to stringent United States Navy specifications. It was built with high tech measures that make it flame and projectile resistant and is equipped with a crew served weapon system. It is fitted with an air collar that functions as a bumper system for ship boarding operations and also serves as an emergency flotation system if the hull is breached.

The boat has a comprehensive communications system that allow the crew interoperable communications with the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments along with all other police and fire departments that border the coastal areas of Los Angeles County. It has federal, state, and military communications capability and can communicate with the Los Angeles County Medical Alert Center and all Los Angeles County-based trauma hospitals.

The boat has a range of several hundred miles and has the capability of staying on scene at an incident for up to one week. It generates its own electricity, has cooking, fresh water and refrigeration capabilities in addition to sleeping quarters. Another unique aspect of the boat is that it is a Los Angeles County Department of Health Services certified Advanced Life Support ambulance. As such, it has the equipment available for the crew to provide medical treatment ranging from minor injuries to severe cardiac and/or trauma injuries. The boat is equipped to transport injured persons in a climate-controlled environment.

The homeland security boat is designed as a dive platform, capable of supporting up to 15 divers. It has a large dive tank storage capacity and a hot and cold water decontamination system that can be used for divers or accident victims exiting contaminated waters. The boat supports surface supplied hard hat diving and sonar scanning to help locate victims or objects under water. The boat has the capability to cruise at speeds up to 40 knots and can respond to all areas within Los Angeles County.

Various intelligence agencies have indicated that the Los Angeles and Long Beach port area is a prime terrorist target. It is the largest port area in the United States and is surrounded by heavily populated areas. In addition to the human toll that a port incident could cause, it is estimated that a terrorist incident occurring at the entrance to the port or in the port itself, would cost the United States economy one billion dollars a day.

To counter this threat the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has combined efforts with the United States Coast Guard, Los Angeles Port Police and the Long Beach Police Department to implement a very robust, proactive port and coastal security program that includes searching high interest vessels before they enter the heavily populated ports.

U.S. Coast Guard and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department intelligence officers determine high interest vessels through the use of a threat matrix. This matrix uses ship origin, cargo, crew members, previous port calls and other indicators to designate high interest vessels.

Designated high interest vessels are identified for pre-port entry searches in county waters outside of the port. A joint boarding team consisting of LASD Special Enforcement Bureau Emergency Services Detail, Arson/Explosive canine detail, HAZMAT detail and Coast Guard members are transported via the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Ocean Rescue boat. The high interest vessel is intercepted outside of the port in the area of the Los Angeles County ship anchorage area. The LASD boat crew notifies the high interest vessel via marine radio of their intent to board the ship. The joint boarding team then boards the ship.

The boarding team detains the ship’s crew and inspects passports and shipping documentation. Using sophisticated radiation detection equipment and trained explosive dogs, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department personnel check the ship for conventional and “dirty” bombs. Detection equipment is carried in backpacks and is set up to detect two types of radiation: neutron and gamma. Neutron radiation is indicative of nuclear bomb grade materials. Gamma rays are put out by a variety of isotopes. Dirty bombs would use isotopes that disperse gamma radiation.

These packs are the same packs used by Department Of Defense Special Operations personnel to search out and detect illicit radiation. The packs work well searching containers and large areas. They are sensitive enough to overcome the shielding of the metal containers.

Emergency Services Detail divers will also periodically conduct hull searches. The ship is then cleared to continue into the port where additional security measures are in place and enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard, L.A. Port Police and Long Beach Police.

Additional missions being conducted by the Sheriff’s Ocean Rescue crew include daily LAX flight path and coastline patrols, Catalina cruise ship and Catalina Express security checks and dives, coastal critical infrastructure patrols and dive accident investigations.

The addition of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department homeland security boat program, with its extremely unique capabilities, has greatly increased the port and coastal security of the County of Los Angeles for the residents of Los Angeles County and the entire region.

Article by: LASD Sergeant Jack Ewell

Video from: Bill Fujioka, Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer

Facing a running deficit of $8.7 million in 2009, El Segundo officials contacted LACoFD to request a proposal for fire protection, paramedic and incidental services. At that time, the Board of Supervisors directed that criteria regarding liabilities, benefits and financial risk now be included in future service proposals. Specifically, the criteria includes whether a city shares boundaries with others served by LACoFD, is financially viable and whether or not there is a reciprocal benefit to County residents.

Based on these new guidelines, the Department prepared a 35-page feasibility study outlining its recommendations to annex the City into the Fire District, at a total 2010-11 estimated cost of $10.1 million to operate its two fire stations, as well as provide specialized District resources, such as hazardous materials, and urban search and rescue squads. A one-time conversion cost of $700,000 would be used to transform their fire stations, vehicles, and personnel equipment to LACoFD’s standards.

The proposed measure generated much debate in the five-square-mile city of 16,000 residents but the El Segundo Firefighters Association, the local firefighter union, funded the measure and collected enough signatures to keep it on the ballot. In an article published on April 8 in The Daily Breeze, El Segundo Fire Chief Kevin Smith stated that his department had already lost 15 firefighting positions and five administrative support job in the past two years. “It’s clear to me that the county would provide better fire protection services to the community than we’re able to provide at this point,” Smith said.

At the end of voting day, however, only 294 residents voted yes on Measure P, putting the issue to rest. While El Segundo’s debate is over, other cities struggling with budget deficits continue to seek consolidation options. In Montebello, city officials overwhelmingly rejected the mayor’s May 10 proposal to study the costs of transferring fire protection to LACoFD, voting 4-1 against going forward. West Covina officials also rejected a proposal last February to contract with LACoFD to help close a projected $5.6 million budget deficit for its next fiscal year, electing to make other budget cuts instead. Still looking at a possible annexation into the Fire District is the Monterey Park City Council, who voted last week to move forward with a special committee to evaluate whether residents should vote to transfer fire services to LACoFD.

Source: http://fire.lacounty.gov

The City Council voted unanimously to consolidate the two agencies, transferring the 220 officers and security guards from General Services to the LAPD.

With the move, the LAPD will take on the work of General Services police: patrolling libraries, City Hall offices and other city facilities.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa backed the merger, including the plan in his 2012-2013 budget.

At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Councilman Mitch Englander urged his colleagues to support the consolidation plan.

“This isn’t a divorce, this is a marriage,” Englander said. “And I say, Mazel Tov.”

Currently, General Services’ sworn officers carry guns and patrol the city’s parks, libraries, and City Hall offices and grounds. The security guards protect the Los Angeles Zoo, Convention Center and other facilities.

Following the consolidation – expected to take place July 1 – both groups would fall within a new department called LAPD’s Security Services Division.

In the short term, the merger will cause a reduction in the number of officers patrolling libraries and parks.

According to Sandy Jo MacArthur, assistant chief in the Office of Administrative Services, 37 General Services officers will become sworn LAPD officers.

The remaining officers will be invited to apply to become LAPD officers, she said.

Overall, there’ll be a “small bump” in the number of LAPD officers, who currently number 9,963, she said.

But unions – who said Mayor Villaraigosa’s office failed to consult with them on the consolidation – remain wary about the plan, and the tight timeline for consolidation.

City Councilman Paul Koretz cast an aye vote, despite his lingering concerns. Koretz is worried that once the merger is complete, the former General Services police officers won’t be as highly regarded as their LAPD peers.

“I’m a little nervous,” Koretz said. “But the plan is moving forward.”

Source: http://www.dailynews.com

More information from Database Administrator “LAflyer” from RadioReference.com:

I was forwarded a document as to how the proposed transfer would be structured.

Below is copy/paste of pertinent sections.
————————————————————————————————————————————-

The proposed consolidation will transition the OPS into the LAPD, meaning the OPS will become a new and unique division within the LAPD, renamed as the Security Services Division. A mix of police and civilian supervisors will be deployed to manage the proposed major components as set forth below.

• City Security Section – The City Security Section will be responsible for the operations of security posts throughout the City 24-hours per day. The Civic Center, the Parks Program, and fixed posts will be the responsibility of this Section.
• Special Services Section – The Special Services Section will be responsible for housing the four major self-contained components of Security Services Division. These include the Los Angeles Zoo, the Library system, the Convention Center, and the Bureau of Sanitation facilities.
• Administrative Section – The Administrative Section will be overseen by the Assistant Commanding Officer of the Security Services Division (Police Lieutenant). Within the Administrative Section will be the dispatch, training, complaint, contract services, technology, and special events units, as well as any other administrative functions.

POLICE OFFICERS:
The current police deployment and patrol will be modified from its current OPS format. The basis for the consolidation plan is for a portion of the police component to be absorbed within the LAPD and handled in a decentralized manner. The geographic responsibilities of the OPS, at a minimum, would be supported by LAPD Area Stations. First responder duties can be accomplished by LAPD patrol divisions. The separating of the law enforcement arm from the security function will diminish any chance of role confusion between the Area Stations and the Security Services Division.
By eliminating redundant functions and reconfiguring existing deployment methods, the LAPD will absorb the responsibilities of GSD sworn currently assigned to patrol duties into the existing patrol function which is supported by the Area Stations.

SECURITY OFFICERS:
Security Officers are the largest group within the OPS. Security Officers are responsible for staffing security posts throughout the Civic Center area and various other facilities throughout the City including:
• The Zoo which is staffed 24-hours a day;
• The Library system where Security Officers are deployed within six geographic zones and visit a minimum of five libraries per day, per zone;
• The Bureau of Sanitation’s four wastewater treatment facilities;
• The Convention Center which is also staffed 24-hours per day; and
• The Parks system where Security Officers are responsible for patrolling approximately 90 parks throughout the City.

Providing security to the City’s facilities is crucial to the OPS operation. It is anticipated that the current deployment of security personnel and resources dedicated to those personnel will remain relatively unchanged in a consolidation.

DISPATCH & COMMUNICATIONS:
The Communications Section is staffed by a Senior Communications Operator and Communications Information Representatives. The current OPS dispatch configuration will be evaluated for possible transition into the LAPD’s Communications Division.
However, under the current OPS configuration, assigned personnel have security camera and alarm monitoring responsibilities in addition to dispatch duties. Should communications personnel continue to work in OPS Headquarters, they will be able to monitor alarms and cameras, but a link will need to be established to be able to tie a new radio frequency directly into the LAPD’s system. Conversely, should the dispatch function be moved to the LAPD Metropolitan Dispatch Center, much of the alarm and camera function will need to be migrated over to the LAPD via hardware and software installation so related calls could continue to be processed.
Since current OPS personnel have not been through the training programs provided to current LAPD Communications Division employees, OPS personnel will only be able to work the Security Services Division frequency until such training is provided. Eventually, full integration of these employees may occur, but would not necessarily be required.
Currently, the OPS has Motorola XTS 5000 handheld radios that are programmed with LAPD frequencies which can be utilized should the consolidation take place. At this time, it is recommended that the dispatch function continue to operate from within OPS Headquarters. However, it is further recommended that a complete migration to the LAPD occur when fiscally and feasibly possible.

The union representing officers who patrol LAX, Ontario and Van Nuys airports say Assembly Bill 2137 would allow the agency to perform seemingly routine functions on airport property.

For now, airport police officers have to call the LAPD for such duties as citing motorists after an accident, seizing firearms during domestic violence incidents or transporting explosives to help train bomb-sniffing dogs, said Marshall McClain, president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association.

“This bill would allow us to conduct the same functions as other law enforcement officers in the state, which is a no-brainer in a post-9-11 era,” McClain said.

The state’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training supports the proposed changes for LAX’s police force. The commission made similar recommendations for the police agencies at the ports of Los Angeles and San Diego, which were both granted the expanded duties several years ago.

However, the union representing Los Angeles Police Department officers opposes the measure, claiming the change “undermines local control” and would lead to “significant” costs to train airport police officers.

Allowing airport police officers to assume those duties would “become an expensive duplication” because the work is already done by the LAPD, said Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

“AB 2137 is premature until the City Council and mayor make informed decisions about the future of LAX security,” Izen wrote in a letter delivered earlier this month to the bill’s author, Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena.

“We are concerned AB 2137 inappropriately bypasses the local review process initiated by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa,” Izen wrote. “This is a local issue that must be first reviewed and decided by the entire City Council.”

Bradford’s measure was approved Thursday by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee and is expected to be heard later this month by the Appropriations Committee, where a similar bill by Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-El Segundo, quietly died last year.

McClain said city officials asked the state Legislature to delay considering Butler’s bill last year until a blue-ribbon panel of security experts appointed by Villaraigosa completed a safety study at LAX.

However, the lengthy report did not address whether LAX’s police officers should be given the same peace officer status as their counterparts at the LAPD.

“We owe it to the residents of Los Angeles and the traveling public to ensure that the Los Angeles Airport Police, who are the first line of defense against any attack on our local airports, have the tools and resources needed to keep our airports and communities safe,” Bradford said.

McClain said he believes the LAPD opposes the measure because the department is fully reimbursed for salaries and benefits of officers assigned to patrol the airport.

A budget proposal presented last week shows that Los Angeles World Airports plans to spend $23.5 million next year for LAPD’s services at LAX, in addition to another $100 million set aside for airport police.

The proposed allocation comes as the Federal Aviation Administration actively investigates whether the LAPD has overcharged for security services at LAX over the past several years. The inquiry was launched last December, after the airport’s police union filed a complaint claiming that the LAPD used the money to pay for expenses unrelated to LAX.

“It’s a political and financial maneuver to protect the city’s general fund,” which has an estimated $238 million deficit for the next fiscal year, McClain said. “I can’t think of any other reason why the LAPD wants to hold us back other than money.”

Source: http://www.dailybreeze.com

It all started just after 10 a.m. Monday at the First Financial Credit Union in the 2500 block of E. Workman Ave. in West Covina.

According to police, an armed parolee entered the credit union and passed a note to the teller demanding money.

The man then fled in a white minivan.  West Covina police caught up with him on at Puente Avenue and the westbound 10 Freeway.  He transitioned to the southbound 605, and then exited onto surface streets at Whittier Boulevard.

At one point, a woman in a red jacket who appeared to be talking on a cell phone approached the van.

The van slowed down, and the woman jumped onto the vehicle, hanging onto the left sliding door.  She clung to the side of the vehicle as police tried to pit the van.  After a brief struggle, she managed to climb inside through an open window.

As the chase continued, the man threw a gun out the window, West Covina police said.

The van eventually came to a stop at Whittier Boulevard and Mar Vista.  The woman got out with her hands up and was taken into custody without incident.

The man stayed inside the van until a police dog named Rambo was sent in after him.  He jumped out of the van and the dog, a 7-year veteran, dragged him to the ground as cash spilled out of the driver’s seat.

The man was handcuffed and taken into custody.  The woman is believed to be the man’s girlfriend.

Their identities have not been released.

Source: http://www.ktla.com

In a unanimous vote late Tuesday night, the council rescinded layoff notices to 87 firefighters, effectively canceling a proposal to use the Orange County Fire Authority, the Daily Pilot reported. Under that plan, the county was expected to have absorbed most — but not all — of the fire department’s employees.

Firefighters had received nearly 43% of the 203 layoff notices sent to city employees since March 2011, when the council began its outsourcing research and implementation.

The council will now work on a fire department restructuring plan that aims to improve service and save money. Councilman Gary Monahan said the plan would address high overtime costs.

The council will then review the plan, which could include closing a fire station and cutting nine positions, at a May 8 study session.

“The administrative staff is quite relieved,” interim Fire Chief Tom Arnold said. “The issue has weighed very heavily on staff, and this decision obviously boosts morale. Everyone is working very hard with less.”

Arnold, who came on in November, said he was researching solutions to “improve efficiency, effectiveness and response times, and achieve real and long-term cost reductions.”

He said  overtime costs would be mitigated with the new plan by using fewer people “deployed in a more efficient way.”

“The good news is we only had 224 fires in 2011. The bad news is we had 224 fires,” Arnold said. “We still had to put out fires. That’s not a lot, but we still have to be prepared for that.”

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com

As part of his budget being released Friday, Villaraigosa is proposing to shift the Department of General Services’ Office of Public Safety into the Los Angeles Police Department, according to City Council members familiar with the proposal.

Under the proposal, some or all of the city’s 250 security officers and sworn officers who guard the city’s parks, zoo, and City Hall would move under the command of the LAPD.

City budget chief Miguel Santana is expected to release a report on the costs, advantages, and risks of moving the department to the LAPD next week.

Additionally, the LAPD is doing its own feasibility study on absorbing the department.

“There’s a lot of homework to do before this can occur,” said City Councilman Dennis Zine, adding he has questions about the plan.

For instance, Zine said the OPS and LAPD officers have different salaries and pension plans.

Additionally, he said, some sworn OPS officers may need additional training before they would be qualified to join the LAPD.

Villaraigosa spokesman Peter Sanders said the Mayor’s Office wouldn’t comment on proposals before the budget is released.

The recommendation, which Villaraigosa also proposed in 2010, would help the city plug a $220 million budget deficit for next year. An estimate of expected savings was not available.

It would also allow Villaraigosa to leave office next year having fulfilled a campaign promise to expand the LAPD to 10,000 officers.

The department employs about 9,960 sworn officers and 2,800 civilians.

Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, hadn’t yet been briefed on the details on the plan, but said he’d consider exploring the idea.

“I am absolutely open to anything that will help the city run better,” Izen said.

The proposal would move OPS’s roughly 100 sworn officers and 150 security guards under the command of the LAPD. The sworn officers carry guns and patrol the city’s parks, libraries, and City Hall offices and grounds. The security guards protect the Los Angeles Zoo, Convention Center and other facilities.

Michael Robertson, president of the Los Angeles General Services Police Officers Association, didn’t return a phone call for comment.

The proposal could result in some reduced administrative costs. It’s unclear if any of workers would be laid off under the plan.

On Friday, LAPD spokesman Commander Andy Smith said he’d just submitted his division’s report for the feasibility study on the merger. But he couldn’t predict if the overall proposal would be approved.

“For a long time, people have called for one city, one police department,” he said. “But those decisions are made at the top of the political triangle.”

Source: http://www.dailynews.com

The publication Urgent Communications has a nice Q and A article on the new law requiring a reallocation of the 700 MHz “D Block” to Public Safety in return for their give-back of the 470 – 512 MHz T-Band frequencies.  Here it is:

HERE’S A LITTLE T-BAND AID

By Alan Tilles

Naturally, all of the buzz since late February has been over the Tax Reform Bill’s reallocation of the 700 MHz D Block to public safety, and the provision of $7 billion in federal funding. However, what has some licensees in the largest urban areas concerned is the requirement that the so-called T-Band (470–512 MHz) be returned in 11 years by public safety, with the FCC auctioning that spectrum.

Since there is not much meat in the bill on this issue, it is important to review what was included — and what was not included — and discuss what typically would happen at this point.

What is this spectrum? The T-Band (TV Channels 14–20) is spectrum that was allocated in the largest urban areas for land-mobile use on a shared basis with broadcasters. In other words, in Washington, D.C., we have Channel 20. However, that channel is not used in Philadelphia, so it could be available for land mobile there, subject to mileage restrictions.

Who has to return the spectrum? The bill states that it must be returned by public safety. Business and industrial users are not mentioned, nor are they specifically excluded. Therefore, whether these users have to be relocated most likely will be discussed by the FCC in the proceeding that it must now conduct to create rules to implement the bill. The FCC could decide that T-Band business and industrial licensees should be moved too.

Where do they move to? The bill is silent on this question. Therefore, the FCC will have to decide the spectrum to which T-Band users will migrate. However, considering the difficulty of finding clear spectrum in these largest urban areas, the FCC may decide on a strategy similar to what occurred with the Microwave/PCS relocation. The commission could decide to leave it to the auction winner to locate compatible, comparable spectrum for a T-Band licensee, with due consideration to equipment and interoperability issues, at the auction winner’s expense. Under this format, it is possible that the auction winner could decide to leave the incumbent in the same place and work around them.

Who pays for the move? The bill provides that T-Band auction proceeds will be used to help fund the move. However, this may not be enough, hence the option to not move incumbents.
When will the moves happen? The FCC must conduct an auction in nine years, with licensees being moved within two years after that.

What happens to narrowbanding in the T-Band? The FCC will need to quickly address whether T-Band licensees still need to narrowband. However, if you have a system that can’t be narrowbanded, it is at least 10 years old. Therefore, if you were to argue that you shouldn’t have to narrowband because you’re going to be moved, your system when you do move will be at least 20 years old. So, you must plan accordingly.

Certainly, T-Band licensees must review carefully how the bill and the implementing regulations impact their operations. However, every problem also should be seen as an opportunity. Over the next months, we’ll be working hard on providing the FCC input regarding how this relocation should happen, and strategizing how licensees can take advantage of a unique situation.

Alan Tilles is counsel to numerous entities in the private radio and Internet industries. He is a partner in the law firm of Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker and can be reached at atilles@srgpe.com.

Source: http://urgentcomm.com

With a new law mandating that the city of Chicago must vacate its T-Band spectrum during the next decade and the absence of alternative spectrum, the city this week asked the FCC for an opinion clarifying the city’s long-term communications alternatives, so it can make long-term plans for mission-critical voice.

As part of the law that reallocated the 700 MHz D Block to public safety and provided $7 billion to fund the buildout of a nationwide broadband network for first responders, Congress required public-safety entities operating system in the T-Band (470–512 MHz) to vacate their spectrum in nine or 11 years. While moving existing T-Band operations would be costly — an estimated $275 million — it is not possible unless comparable spectrum is provided in another band, according to a letter from Chicago’s office of emergency management and communications.

“All of the funding in the world will not enable the city to conform its radio networks to the letter of the legislation, without extreme harm and threat to the citizens of Chicago and surrounding area, absent some viable location upon the radio spectrum to which that traffic might be safely moved,” the letter states, noting that the city already has spent $23 million on upgrades to its existing system and planned to spend more if allowed to remain in the T-Band.

“The city’s action in its current groundwork building UHF and UHF T-band infrastructure is the long-term investments for which we have been committed to for over 40 years, and is the only viable spectrum solution in today’s environment. The city cannot wait for 2, 5, or 9 years for additional spectrum to become available, since our needs are today. The alternative is nearly too harsh to consider, but must be addressed.”

If no remedial spectrum options are presented, the new law “exceeds the boundaries of rational legislation” and decades of planning could be undone, according to the letter.

“The thought that the city’s vital public safety radio networks can be turned to junk without any recourse or alternative spectrum is beyond disturbing,” the letter states. “It is, moreover, a waste and condemnation of public property without consideration to the affected interest of officer or citizens.

“Chicago respectfully requests that the commission address the issues discussed herein and provide to the city and surrounding areas an advisory opinion that will assist the city in obtaining a greater appreciation for federal policies threatening the city’s public safety radio systems and its funding of same.”

Chicago is not alone among public-safety T-Band users in asking such questions, but each T-Band situation is different, according to Harlin McEwen, chairman of the technology committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

“Over the next year or so, let’s begin to rationally think out what the options are,” he said. “I think that’s the way to do it, maybe bring together the people that are affected and talk about it in some kind of a setting, so we can look at what the options are — and the options are going to be different, depending on where you are.”

Indeed, some T-Band entities already have narrowbanded their systems, and others are in the process of doing so. In some cases, there may be alternative spectrum available — 700 MHz narrowband airwaves or UHF channels cleared via the narrow banding process — but there is nothing comparable to the T-Band in the Chicago area, according to the letter.

One other option proposed by Charles Dowd, deputy chief for the New York Police Department, is that public-safety agencies operating in the T-Band should be exempt from narrowbanding, so they can use the financial resources that would have been dedicated to that effort to help fund deployment of 700 MHz LTE systems. However, there is no mission-critical voice application established for LTE system today, and no one is certain when mission-critical voice will be an option over broadband—some industry sources believe it could be realized within three years, while others believe it will take decades, if it can be accomplished at all.

Source: http://urgentcomm.com/