Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Utah Communications Agency Network Overview


Published on

This presentation was given by Steve Proctor, Director of the Utah Communications Agency Network, to the Utah Broadband Advisory Council on January 12, 2012.

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Utah Communications Agency Network Overview

  2. 2.  UCAN is not: The Utah Cancer Action Network UCAN is : The Utah Communications Agency Network Formed in 1997 by the Legislature Purpose: To construct and maintain a public safety grade communications network to serve state and local government Partnership between state and local agencies
  3. 3.  Governor Leavitt:  First Staff: 1999 Task Force in 1993  36 Months to Build Legislative Bill 96 & 97  43 UCAN/20 Olympic passed in 1997 sites  16 E-9-1-1 Centers Agency Input !!! interconnected Management Board  95% In-building Executive Committee
  4. 4.  The system was designed to support public safety. With the 2002 Winter Olympic Games Bid, it became a partnership event to support the games. Communications for 8 counties hosting the venues Communications for management of the Games by SLOC Total of about 12,000 users $17M Bond, plus several Federal Grants Survived the turf battles, and politics going forward
  5. 5. And…..Transportation, Corrections, Hospital,Natural Resources, Ambulance, PublicWorks, Federal Users, and any othersInvolved in the protection of life andProperty........
  6. 6.  This was the largest public safety event ever in Utah It was 4 Months after the largest terrorist event in the USA— with BAD interoperability and communications We had to be prepared and it had to work Olympics/Para Olympics: 10,600,000 calls or an average of 500K per day Portable to Portable great coverage Network Call Management is Critical
  7. 7.  Trunked Radio allows the use of multiple channels autonomously by many users—while having the ability to use the same channel also…… System to System patch thru consoles Channel patch: FED/State/Local Unit to Unit Simplex—State and National Conventional Repeaters Operations channels--Trunked Regional Channels--Trunked (county wide) Events Channels--Trunked (system wide)
  8. 8.  Success of the system motivated the move to expand the coverage Successful consolidation with Salt Lake County Upgrade of the system network Additional Federal Funding thru PS Interoperability Grants and DOJ grants Users quickly started to migrate to the new system Expanded the coverage into other areas/improved coverage Cache-Rich-Box Elder Washington Uintah, Duchesne I-15 Corridor US 89 to Richfield
  9. 9.  THE UCAN SYSTEM SERVES 91AGENCIES CHALLENGES MET: Turf Issues, Wait and See, What are the costs? Shared Vision: What will it look like? Timing: build and serve at the same time Technology Obsolescence: build or wait How to Communicate with those who don’t participate
  10. 10.  The system has a presence in 25 Counties It serves 147 public safety agencies There are over 23000 radios on the system Agencies are continually adding radios to the network 33 of the 36-911 dispatch centers are connected The system has doubled in size: from 41 to 83 sites with 8 additional sites funded for installation The system has grown from 293 to 650 Repeaters (talk paths) Approximate Investment 85 Million Infras. and radios We are 10 years into a 20 year life cycle—its time to plan and fund the replacement Future systems are all digital and IP Based
  11. 11.  Additional 10 or so sites planned for more coverage Laying the Political Groundwork for funding What to do about funding, options?? Agency input and awareness Which system do we choose?? How do we continue to maintain what we have?? New Partnerships—what will they be Timing of the Change: “we have to keep the airplane flying while we change the wings!”
  12. 12.  Next Generation 911: whatever products, services and access that will create will require more bandwidth Same connection facilities for Rural Utah D Block Initiative: Broadband services to public safety providers: nationally and locally Public Safety must have Priority Service Connecting the dots: Public Safety networks traditionally have multiple nodes to connect ▪ -Dispatch Facilities ▪ -Transmission Facilities ▪ -Field Unit access to Data and Communications
  13. 13. • We identified a “Common Pain” which brought the stakeholders together• A “Convener of Stature” supported the effort-Governor• A committed leader was identified as a ”broker” to keep it together• OPENESS, TRANSPARENCY, VOLUNARY PARTICIPATION• Critical Mass--- We had a drop dead date: The 2002 Olympics• Utilize representatives who can and will make decisions• Agree on a clearly defined purpose and goal• Have a formal charter outlining: Governance structure, outcomes, funding and levels of participation• Recognize the solution requires continued “nurturing and management”—You don’t fix it one time and then it goes away• We can’t do it alone, but we can do it together…….