Public safety applications for Nextel
Special needs may require using the commercial service provider that we love to hate.
Pat Hinkle already gets plenty of publicity. As a sergeant with the Lenexa, KS, police department, Hinkle has worked on several high-profile cases, one of which has even been dramatized on a TV show. (Wisely, the producers used professional actors for the recreation.) Hinkle presently heads the department’s six-person Directed Patrol Unit (DPU). The unit was established to allow a small group of patrol-division officers to proactively focus on crime within a narrow commercial corridor. Because of their latitude to respond and investigate independently, the unit has proved quite effective in prevention and apprehension.
The implementation of this new unit quickly brought to light certain deficiencies of the department’s communication system. System shortcomings occurred in two operational areas. First, even though this handful of officers worked in Lenexa, which is a small suburb (population about 40,000) of the metro Kansas City area (population about two million), their investigative assignments required them to travel far outside the city boundaries. Second, by the sensitive nature of the criminal activity (and the comparative sophistication of the target crooks) “regular” two-way radio conversations were deemed too accessible to the listening public. Both these problems are common to other smaller departments, especially those in or near metro areas.
Lenexa’s Technical Services Unit tried a variety of equipment combinations and operating strategies, including odd-split repeaters and secret codes, all of which proved to be about as practical as talking pig Latin or listening directly to an inversion scrambler (which was also tried.)
Our ultimate solution, which took longer to achieve because of our dedicated (hard-headed) technical orientation, was that our small department needed to be part of and/or have access to a much larger voice communications system. Again, being technically oriented, we discussed, speculated and conjured on a way to achieve two critical goals for our “special-needs” out-of-area users. First, we needed a system that would allow convenient mobile-to-mobile coverage throughout the entire bi-state metro area, which covers seven counties and more than 3,000 square miles. Second, we needed to provide our users with “secure” communications. Requirement number two conjured up words like “Astro” “DVP” and “Aegis,” all of which work well enough but involve too many dollar signs.
In discussions with our counterparts in other departments, we learned that they, too, were facing the same two problems-coverage and security-for a small segment of their own users. Our initial considerations focused on the possibility of using either channels or talk groups on one or several existing radio systems. This would eliminate the design and construction costs for a fixed system infrastructure or backbone. Examination of this idea revealed a situation typical of many areas: No single public safety system could provide either the coverage or features throughout the entire metropolitan service area. Several users operated active, reliable modern trunked systems, but none of the three Ericsson or three Motorola systems provided adequate coverage.
We next considered commercial service providers. One local shop-based company offered a multisite UHF trunking system, but optimum performance dictated the use of mobile-type radios. Presently, there are five “sources” of wireless dial tone from cellular, PCS and ESMR providers in our area, but only the ESMR -Nextel Communications-offered “dispatch” service.
We dismissed the telephony-model cellular and PCS systems because trying to drive an unmarked car and quickly establish four- or five-party conversations by setting up strings of three-way calls would be a dexterity nightmare. (I believe that “Are you still there?” and “Can you hear me?” are the words most frequently uttered by cellphone users.) Quickly, we found ourselves in the position of following the technology curve instead of leading it as was common for public safety 30 years ago.
As with any opportunity, though, what’s bad about it is also what’s good about it. In the case of the Nextel system, one “bad” point was its large pool of diverse users who would certainly clog up “our” channels. But the “good” point was that our infrequent and brief bursts of conversation would be “lost” amongst the crowd of conversation, allowing statistical and technical security. The “bad” point of recurring monthly charges was countered by the zero cost for capital construction and the minimal cost of new instruments. Because we initially projected only occasional usage of the radio handsets, we were able to negotiate a one-year deal with Nextel. For any month in which we didn’t incur airtime usage, Nextel would credit the entire access charge. (Relating that story to current Nextel staffers leaves them pale, faint and speechless.)
With Hinkle and the other DPU officers directly involved, we started off with an initial purchase and deployment of six Nextel handsets. The DPU found immediate use for the system when it began an interstate investigation that also involved a federal agency and several other local departments. Officers were able to remain in reliable contact while conducting multiple-target moving surveillance and without interfering with any “regular” police communications. (The dispatchers loved that part.)
As the value of the Nextel service as a supplement to the department’s private radio system became better known, other metro departments began acquiring their own units. Lenexa has added eight more handsets-six for the regular investigations unit plus two more for expanded operation of the DPU. So far, the moderate monthly cost (and moderate usage) of this commercial service has proved a reasonable solution to the needs of this small department.
