InternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013www.seipub.

org/ijace

MobileEmergencyCommunicationSystem Architecture
ErikCertain1,DavidLiu*2
1 2 1

RaytheonNetworkCentricSystems,FortWayne,IN,USA IndianaUniversityPurdueUniversityFortWaye,FortWane,IN,USA erik_a_certain@raytheon.com;*2liud@ipfw.edu improve the performance and capacity of LMR systems, the quality of public safety communication systems has generally lagged behind commercial systems such as cellular development. This disparity in performance and the lack of ability to interconnect between emergency response departments was not fully understood until recent crisis highlighted the severity of the need to deploy coordinated operations among the various response departments locally and non locally and the ability to access real time data. A real world event, such as the Hurricane Katrina or recent Tsunami in South East Asia is a good example of a complete collapse of the existing communications infrastructurefromanaturaldisaster. In addition to noninterconnected communications devices, rescue and recovery efforts are hampered by damaged or destroyed infrastructure. An adhoc communications infrastructure with support of VOIP (voiceoverIP),broadband,andvideostreaming,must be put in place relatively quickly and support robust communication links in order to adjust to changing mission critical multimedia needs between rescue teams and responders and their headquarters over extremely long distances using combinations of wirelessnetworktechnologies. Establishing adhoc communications networks in real emergency conditions was achieved by a group led by the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in ground based satellite communications using an IEEE 802.11 cell phone and 802.16 router in Thailand shortly after all communication infrastructure was lost to the Tsunami [Miller et al., 2006]. The equipment was pieced together with onsite available items given by the various companiesan effective communications grid was quickly developed, providing critical connectivity to the world. This gave way to the concept of developing a standard for FlyAway mobile communications network was a critical asset for the world associations such as the Red Cross, FEMA, etc.

Abstract In this paper, emergency communications past and present are discussed. The current public safety issues of non interconnected separately owned and operated Land Mobile Radio (LMR or private mobile radio (PMR)) networks to the presently designed systems for interconnected from agency to agency use radio systems that are created by unifying communication resources providing public safety agencies local, regional, and national services. These proposed interconnected systems are called mobile responder communication networks (MRCNs). Many groups have explored how to accomplish interconnecting existing and new infrastructure, from small devices to larger, interconnecting public to private networks. A particular focus of this paper will also explore a newer technology called WiMAX, a bridging technology that can expand the useable spectrum of services currently available. The infrastructure, including WiMAX, can bridge services and also enhance current ones. MRCNs can use a common IP based network service intelligent session control to bridge commercial networks as well with LMRs. Thus, this would allow for the support of multimedia services, broadband access via high data rate access, and mission critical group voice and other services not available with current LMR technologiesduringemergencyresponses. Keywords Wireless and Mobile Networks; Land Mobile Radio; Public Safety; EmergencyCommunications

Introduction For many decades, land mobile radio (LMR) has been the mainstay of public safety agencies communications, such as the fire department, EMS, law enforcement, and other emergency response departments. These radios are locally owned and managed units dedicated solely for that purpose and nonintegratedwithanyothercommunicationdevices, let alone not often integrated outside a small localized area.Althoughdevelopmentssuchascomputeraided dispatch and trunking have been introduced to

35

www.seipub.org/ijaceInternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013

This new concept could be created by anyone and used to support disaster areas that have lost or communicationsinfrastructuredidnotexist. With increased awareness of the importance of communications between first responders or recovery teams, the threat of terrorist activities, and natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes; research has been performed as to how to quickly deploy the necessary infrastructure needed to handle the necessary requirements for streamlined communications to the various responders. The evolving capabilities of IEEE 802.16 are a natural extension to mobile platforms, as well as being able to provide basic communication, situational awareness, and telemedicine. Much research as been done in the form of connecting legacy and current technologies in hopes of ascertaining useable communications for voice and broadband services. Wireless technologies (mainly WiFi, WiMax, RFID badges, and GEO satellite) are considered in this paper in order to meet the requirements of disaster rescue communications scenarios [Lu, et al. 2006]. To find solutions to these problems, many projects, experimentations, and groups have gathered to attempt demonstrating possible architectures. One such group, MESA, has proposed a complete end to end, large scope to small solutionwhichwillbediscussedatlength.Inaddition, others propose mobile responder communication networksforpublicsafety,orutilizingmeshnetworks. These proposed standards extend the existing standards such as the APCO Project 25 in the US and TETRAandTetrapolinEurope.Tosuccessfullycreate a system commercial aspects are considered, scalability, service availability, current features and desired features, IP models, VOIP, signaling, broadband and bandwidth issues, multimedia applications,andreliability. Existing public safety communication systems are based on several different standards and these standards have created technologies that are often unable to talk with each other. The problem of interoperability between different emergency and protection communication systems exist at every levelnational and international. Another one of the reasons this issue exists is due to budgetary constraints and technical constraints of existing public legacy communication systems. In addition, public sectors have not converged to purchase like equipment for their departments, rather each has gone their own way which has worked for many years but is now having longer term impact. This paper

presents a survey of existing public safety communication systems for rapid deployable systems and their infrastructure and some of the evolution up to this time. Topics highlighted will include challenges in its development, and ongoing research andstandardizationtakingplace. Historical Background As previously mentioned, TETRA and Tetrapol in Europe, and APCO Project 25 were the first deployed version of private mobile radio (PMR) narrow band digital communication architecture for public safety and security communications and information exchange. These architectures allowed for a broad range of wireless communications specialized particularly to public safety including: wireless networks including digitalvoice and multimedia data, establishing a common (integrated) wireless network infrastructure, and separate command and control multiagency cooperative system, support for both infrastructure and noninfrastructure based communication usage, and allow for cryptographic key management [Boukalov, 2005]. The systems presently allow for teleservices such as point to point calls, group calls, broadcast calls, enciphered digital data, call interrupt, talking party identification and otherservices. Europe TETRA [TERRA] is ETSI [ETSI] standard for PMR that is used by a large number of public safety agencies across the globe. TETRA uses time division multiple access at 25 KHz for limited interference systems. Countries have achieved countrywide coverage solely using TETRA networks and have dedicated national operator organization [ETSI] to run their operation. TETRA networks can reach the typical user up to 17.5 kmaway. Tetrapol is the PMR name in France for the company Matra. The police in France use this technology. There are also Tetrapol networks in Spain, the Czech Republic and in Switzerland. Together, the users of these systems are called the Tetrapol Forum [Tetrapol] because they have joined together. Tetrapol has some similaritiesinarchitecturetoAPCOsProject25. With increased awareness of the importance of communications between first responders or recovery teams, the threat of terrorist activities, and natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes; research has been performed as to how to quickly

36

InternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013www.seipub.org/ijace

deploy the necessary infrastructure needed to handle the necessary requirements for streamlined communications to the various responders. The evolving capabilities of IEEE 802.16 are a natural extension to mobile platforms, as well as being able to provide basic communication, situational awareness, talkingpartyidentificationandotherservices. UnitedStates

APCOs Project 25 is the standard for most of the US publicsafetymarketwhichusesdigitaltrunkingbased on frequency division multiple access in phase 1 (vs. TETRA which uses time division). Project 25s second phase uses time division multiplier access, and can accessnetworksasfaras35km.Thisstandardfocuses on user authentication, call control, mobility control, and management features. Given the predominance of IP today, the subsystems are each treated as an IP In comparison to current public safety technologies endpoint to realize the IPbased protocols such as using land mobile radio technologies, commercial session initiation protocol (SIP) for call signaling and technologies have rapid evolution and development real time protocol (RTP) for media transport. The cycles including many advances in access and infrastructure. Various network options are available packet based approach to land mobile radio is not depending on the carrier frequency, available applicabletolegacyLMRsystems,onlynewerones. bandwidth(whichiseverincreasing),andthelicensed Due to the phenomenal growth of the public wireless and unlicensed nature of the spectrum. Specifications networks, there are several ongoing discussions of the for access to these interfaces allow for interoperability use of the public networks (e.g. cellular technologies) to be achieved across the various networks which for emergency communications. For singular reasons utilize several different equipment manufacturers such as budgetary reasons this is enough for some to hardware or across networks managed by different make the switch. However, many agencies do not see carriers (e.g. Verizon, Cingular, etc). Because of the this as a viable option for the present time. But some rapid development of these services and competition of the public wireless networks are beginning to that drives each of them to offer more services, the incorporate commercial wireless data technologies. availability to multiband, multimode devices allows But there are major differences in the market forces operation ina variety oflicensedand unlicensed radio that drive the commercial and public safety policies access infrastructures [Dilmaghani et al., 2007]. such as bandwidth and requirements. This has Furthermore, there arefew disruptionsof services due shaped the two to become intrinsically different than to the widespread availability of access. The next in the early stages of their developmentthe evolutionary question is how the public sector could commercial sector is rapidly being developed in utilize the commercial sectors technologies to advance comparisontothepublicsafetysector. their own for a more robust set of services and a unified communications infrastructure without losing Commercial Wireless Technologies theinfrastructurecurrentlyinplaceanduse. Commercial wireless technologies are currently in their third generation (3G). Standards of the various 3Gcellulartechnologies(cdma2000,GSM/EDGEand UMTS and wireless local & metropolitan are network (IEEE 802.11x and 802.16x (WiMAX)) [Miller et al., 2006] address several of the issues facing public safety agencies and departments today. One of the issues is thecompatibilityofthevariousservicesprovidersand equipment manufacturers. These manufacturers are WIDENS and MESA Introduced The development of current technologies was not first introduced commercially, but rather it was started by the military. DARPA was probably the first who initiated the Packet Radio Network (PRN) program [Boukalov, 2005]. Unlike the current commercial infrastructures, the initial PRN protocols were centralized control stations butquicklydeveloped into

backed by are large user base that requires interoperability, which creates competition that drives innovation and cost reduction in the process. The innovations of new technologies offer new services, which drives competition between providers and manufacturersfurther driving competition. One of the newer innovations is the high data rate access or broadband access for email, instant messaging, or maps,etc.Thereducedcostsallowmorewirelessbase stations and cellular devices to be used on the networks, therefore, achieving better geographical coverage nationwide. Well defined standards allow public safety personnel to use the existing services regardless of the underpinning hardware infrastructure or equipment provider. a good example of a complete collapse of the existing communicationsinfrastructurefromanaturaldisaster.

37

www.seipub.org/ijaceInternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013

distributed systems with multihop forwarding techniques. In the early 1980s, DARPA first initiated the Survivable Radio Networks program (SURAN). That program lead to enhanced scalability with low cost, low power features using sophisticated packet radio protocols. In the mid 1990s, DARPA initiated Global Mobile Information program (Gloom). Its aim was to provide Ethernettype multimedia (voice, video, images, etc) connectivity any time, anywhere. The future of the radio services include improved flexibility, ability to transmit and receive on different waveforms, and the integration of broadband access capable systems deployed in an adhoc manner in any placeneeded. The development of adhoc systems which include broadband in rapid deployable systems is the main goal for public safety projects WIDENS (European research IST FP5) and MESA [Boukalov, 2005]. The WIDENS project provides valuable contributions to the ongoing MESA standardization process for a feature rich system. Included in the design are dynamic topologies, bandwidth and energy friendly constraints, asymmetric linkage to subsystems, and conflict resolution related to quality of service (QoS), mobility, and security. Tradeoffs exist between centralized and distributed infrastructure and different emergency scenarios which need to be taken intoaccount. The WIDENS project is presently developing adhoc broadband systems enabled to be deployed quickly in place of damaged or nonexistent equipment for public safety. One area of research is the use of GPS technologiesandthesecondisUltraWideband(UWB) indoor radio localization. Development of the heterogeneous network [Balachandran et al., 2006] is a key research topic for reconfigurable wireless networks. Reconfigurable wireless networks are considered to be selfhealing and system adaptive architectures which is scalable and can relay information on interoperable mobile platforms. This includes any form of repeater that could support broadband communications and public network air interfaces for voice, etc for legacy systems at the same time. The MESA project was introduced as a system of systems approaches as its key objective to integrate all systems (current and legacy) of its communications specification for future public safety development. Its goal is the standardization of emergency information.

Many hybrid communications systems are included in the specification development harmonization of establishing future interoperable public safety communication systems among the various standards presently. Because MESA addresses all formats of interconnectivity needed for all users, the communication network will need to address all networkconfigurationsforallserviceuserneeds.This approach standardizes components and provides common architecture for a tailored solution for compatibility, interconnectivity, and interoperability of current, legacy, and nextgeneration systems in the public safety sector. The common platform for all users to connect to will bridge the current division of services, and place all services under one umbrella for an overall command and management service. This architecture is flexible to the needs of all agencies and users, including a single reactionary force or temper ahhoc network, to a system of systems command scenariothatcoordinatestheindividualizedmissions. MESAInDepth The public safety communication system of systems architecture of components and structure of the connections and the principles for interoperability are viewed as essential to the infrastructure. MESA systems are broken down into four types of networks: personal area network (PAN), incident area network (IAN), jurisdiction area network (JAN), and extended area network (EAN) [Project MESA, 2005]. Each of these networks provides a different set of interconnectedness, with some overlaps in network capability. 1)PAN The personal are network is the lowest form of networking over a very limited physical space and distance. It is made up of devices dedicated to a specific task such as sensors, etc. The scope of the network is limited usually to another device, person, vehicle, building, etc. Since a PAN is limitedinnature,itcanbeeasilytailoredtospecific needs. However, PAN devices are localized, not able to interconnect with services that are outside their immediate scope. When possible, the PAN can communicate on either an IAN or JAN when needed. Deployment of limited mobility is inferred, being that the scope is limited in connectivity. The means of connectivity can involve a number of different options, including

38

InternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013www.seipub.org/ijace

satellite and wireless links, hardwired connections, and interfaces with other PAN devices and networks. PAN devices are usually associated in connecting to higher level networks such as IANs and JANs. However, when in motion the connectivity to other PANs is considered very limited, and IANs and JANs may offer the only connectivityfound. 2)IAN The incident is network (IAN) is a dedicated network for single events or incidents. It can be predeployed for things such as sporting events, or dynamicallydeployedforanunplannedeventsuch asanaturaldisaster.AnIANcouldbedeployedin situations where the current infrastructure is non existent or has been destroyed quickly, and can include MESA and nonMESA architecture. When an IAN is deployed as a planned event, it is a self configuring, where the network is automatically establishedwiththeavailabledevicesandnetwork. It is also considered selfhealing, being that the communication coverage and network access may become unstable but selfcorrective behavior is used to correct anomalies. When limited coverage is determined, more devices can be added quickly and easily or repositioned to create an extended network. This behavior is considered very dynamic, being that the IAN devices are preconfigured to interact with other IAN devices, and connect to the JAN devices readily. These devices are also determinable considered to be ah hoc in nature, no lengthy preparation is needed for deployment, and the ability to bridge to existing networks demonstrates the fluid nature of this networkdeployment. The IAN devices capabilities are much broader than that of the PAN. IAN devices can support broadband applications, voice, and video communications. This higher level of service in comparison allows for more demanding applications, and the MESA IAN is intelligent enough to recover or reconfigure resources when other devices are brought online in order to enhanceserviceandqualityofconnectivity. Because IANs are still considered for shorter range connectivity (than that of JAN or EANs), the network is shared with a smaller number of devices. This can allow for more flexibility for the network to allow larger applications or higher data

rates per user because of limited user access. IANs also allow for peertopeer connectivity, allowing two or more devices to connect directly to one another independent of the established networks. One of the considerations of deployment of these type of networks is the allocation of spectrumto allow for interference issues of crossover infrastructure. However, IANs are able to handle many different types of traffic and components, assumingusingthesamestandardsandbandwidth. IANs are capable of communicating with larger networks such as JANs or EANs, as well as handling requests from lower level users on PANs, dependingontheplannedordeployedarchitecture. BecauseIANshavealargerconnectivityscopethan PANs, mobility is easier to accommodate for IAN or PAN devices, given the proper authorization to access the network. Furthermore, roaming capabilities are envisioned for connections to IAN to JAN when leaving coverage areas of one to another.WhenPANscannotconnecttoIANsdue to not having the proper authorization, they may try establishing connections with higher level networks(EAN/JAN). 3)JAN The jurisdiction area network (JAN) is designed to provide an even larger area of coverage than the IAN.JANscanextendcoveragetoacity,countyor smallcountrypossibly.ThedeploymentofJANsis notconsideredtobeadhoc,butiswelldesignedto consider reliability for mission critical users and providing quality signal strength. JANs infrastructure is constructed with towers that broadcast signals, designed for placement on hilltops when located in areas where larger coverage areas are needed. JANs can also by synonymous with EANs, being that the deployed architecturemaysimilar.JANstypicallyconnectto amultipleofotherJANs,IANs,andPANs. A JAN is considered static compared to the dynamic nature of IANs. JANs are preconfigured to allow for some dynamic reconfiguration. While JANs are able to be repositioned to acquire another network, adhoc capabilities are limited and best left to lower networks such as IANs and PANs. JAN networks are dedicated to providing complete and consistent coverage over a specific area of geography; therefore, the established JAN cannot radicallyshiftresourcesasdemandschange.

39

www.seipub.org/ijaceInternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013

The infrastructure of JANs includes the traditional land mobile radio networks of legacy systems currently in place of emergency responders. The fixed nature of the topology of JANs makes it easy to determine consistent minimum coverage that each JAN can maintain. Central offices are the connectinginfrastructureofJANstoEANsorother JANsinremotelocations. 4)EAN The extended area network can represent the traditional infrastructures found in JAN and in land mobile radio systems. It also includes databases and informational systems, and wider variety of services than that of the lower networks. EANs are the highest network, compared to JANs, IANs, and PANs. EANs can also join any lower level of network service including the lowest network level of PANs, acting as the bridge that allowsforeithermobilityorconnectivity. At the EAN level of network, a central office is used for facilitating dispatching information and communications to each lower level network such as PANs. It serves as a central coordination point for all other infrastructure when bridging longer distances and other networks is needed. EANs need other lower level networks to carry out the communications from the central office, to ensure the migration of seamless communications. Therefore, EANs play a central role in the communication process, but are not the focus. The reasonforthisismainlyduetotheinfrastructureof an EAN is mostly fixed, nondynamic in nature, and not easily deployed quickly. Compatibility issues can also exist across different platforms during implementation, for security and authorizationprotocols 5)NetworkSupportMESANetworkDevices The various networks form the basis of the system of systems, and end to end solution for emergency communications. Each has their own characteristics, which some of those will be highlightedfortheirstrengthsandweaknesses. PANs can be used for emergency alerts and critical communications. Messages are delivered in a timely manner, probably using some form of priority.Packetsaredeliveredinafixedamountof time and latency, and the rate of sending is enforced to prevent network overloading. When

overloading occurs, retransmission of sent data normally occurs therefore lost data is not an issue. Messages are normally automated, the messages intended to be sent should make a best effort to be delivered but thereis no guarantee of delivery.An application of this is used for normal status updatesandcommunicationofalerts. IANs is described as a class of service that is used for mission critical applications such as real time voice, video, and other data communications. This requires little or no latency in delivery of the data, littleornojitter,andsmallamountsatmaximumof lost packets. Network performance should be strong, and messages delivered to multiple recipients (such as pushtotalk (PTT)) should arrive at similar times. This is an essential requirement for the IAN network. An example of this form of communication is an ambulance sending/streaming realtime video to a hospital for life critical communications. The entire message needs to be sent quickly and completely. In addition, users can join the network easily and leave groups. It should be noted that there are other classes of IANs, but non that support emergencycommunications. JANs services offered are similar to those of IANs. Both networks maintain connectivity and session informationforcriticalmessaging.However,JANs also require auditing capability for network transactions, allowing statistical information to be ascertained. In the MESA description for JANs, it notes that there are many requirements that are needed for them to operate to adhere to all the requirements. Some of the highlights include havingtheabilitytotransmittoalltherecipientsin the given radius, capable of storing data, including a help system, capturing user profiles, support of hands free operations, and support plug and play devices and components. These form the standards to which JANs adhere to for multi vendorcompatibilityassurance. EANs are not elaborated on any further, being that they are not considered significantly to be any different than JANs other than the hardware utilized. Creating Viable Networks for Public Safety MESA systems are broken down into four types of networks: MESA laid the foundation for the basis of others to implement hardware that can be used for

40

InternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013www.seipub.org/ijace

emergency communications with application to public safety. However, there are no hardware standards for this, only theoretical standards exist as to how it should behave. Implementing thesestandardsis nota clear path forward, and requires trial and error, and a lot of field testing. Some of the implemented software for the hardware includes commercial applications, creating complete mobile responder communication networks,andmeshnetworksasafewexamples. Mobile Responder Communication Networks Creating a network that connects legacy and commercial hardware is the basis of this form of network. The mobile responder communications network (MRCN) has been idealized by many groups, including the Homeland Security branch of government. Its goal is to unify the public safety communications resources to be shared with other public safety agencies to provide a local, regional, and national service [Balachandran et al., 2006]. MRCNs couldbecreatedusingpooledresourcesacrossvarious public safety departments at all levels of government, but not necessarily owned or operated by these government agencies. MRCNs could operate in existing land mobile radio networks and in the commercialspectrumoranewonededicatedtopublic safety.Furthermore,ifutilizingexistinginfrastructure of public and commercial hardware then this would enable increased coverage and reduced implementationcosts[ProjectMESA,2005]. Either public safety or commercial wireless communication standards presently do not meet the needs of the targeted applications of public safety. Someofthecurrenttechnologiesoverlapsuchaspoint to point voice and high data rate access, but commercial wireless technologies tend to be far superiortothoseofthepublicsafetytechnologies.But someofthetechnologiesofthepublicsafetystandards are superior to those of the commercial ones. The main differences are that the public safety land mobile radio and commercial wireless communication technologies have differing requirements based on the needs of the various applications. For instance, push totalk radio requirements implemented in the public safety sector have much more stringent requirements andsuperiorperformanceinlandmobileradiothanin commercial technologies. Therefore, the preferred method of implementation rather than choosing one wireless technology over the other is to join the two network architectures to incorporate multiple access technologiesgaining the benefits of both. Due to the

rapid development of commercial technologies, it is presumed that the commercial technologies will overtake the need to retrofit and maintain the land mobile radio systems, and commercial technologies replacethementirely. Significant challenges exist for legacy land mobile radio networks in order for them to provide interoperable communications between users. The typical land mobile radio uses a baseband audio interfacethereinlaystheproblem.Theproblemisthat baseband audio has disadvantages such as the loss of tactical voice features like endtoend encryption, priority and floor network administration. This approach can result in voice quality loss during multiple conversations to and from using baseband audio. To mitigate the problem, TIA standards group is defining an interface to allow voice interoperability between different frequency subsystems. Because of the predominance of IP configurations, the industry standard relegates treating each subsystem as an IP endpoint. Commercial wireless networks provide many advantages over the legacy land mobile radio networks. One advantage is improved service availability, greater coverage nationwide compared to its counterpart. High data rate access is also a predominate feature, which means that the interoperability standard could allow the public safety groups to communicate whenever needed, wherever, and with whomever. Because the commercial networks purchase more infrastructure on an ongoing basis, their cost is reduced and the coverage can easily and affordability be expanded into new areas. However, not all commercial benefits are enough for thepublicsectortoswitchover. One such area where commercial technologies lack is the pushtotalk feature used heavily in the public safety sector. PushtoTalk is scalable up to hundreds of public safety users at a given time, possibly in the same cell. It has quick responselow latency delays, and high levels of service availability. Commercial networks currently do not have low latency response times,andwouldneedtobeenhancedtoallowforthis. In addition, support of broadcast downlink channels and priority access mechanisms (to allow others to be designated as a lower priority) will allow the pushto talk services to be competitive to those offered by the landmobileradiotechnologies.

41

www.seipub.org/ijaceInternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013

CommercialLowLatency Low latency push to talk on commercial network are not typical, but are dominated by access delays and paging delays. The is the measurement of the from the time the user pushes the pushtotalk button to request to use the floor to the time when a chirp messageisreceivedtoindicatethatthefloorisgranted for use. Some of the delays can be minimized by allowing technology specific enhancements. These enhancements can include piggybacking of messages onto a channel specifically designed to handle channel resources. This uses a short data burst of packets that are added to existing packets. Also, reducing the message size of each of the requests can significantly free up the used bandwidth, and reduce transfer delays over the interface. Priority (high) messages could also grant favorable important message delays from occurring, by persisting those messages with low priority for the short durations neededto allow higher priority messages to transmit. Pushtochirp delays shouldhavenomorethan500msofdelayinherently. Another objective in paging is the life of the battery. To enable the pushtotalk commercial networks to obtain lowlatency, more power is used to keep the radios checking for messages. Setting up the radios to not check as often or frequently can extend the battery life significantly. Therefore, by reducing the paging delays,batterylifeisalsoreduced,whenradiosareset up to listen for messages more frequently than not. The preferable methodof a reduction ofpagingdelays for the public safety sector is to lower the interval of radio awakening via a dedicated signaling or by hard coded frequency awakening intervals to check for messages. CommercialScalability The scalability of pushtotalk technologies in the commercial sector are not able to currently handle the requirements needed in the public sector. Scalability is the ability to add the number of users to the same group to participate in the communications, transmitting identical content to each connection. Typically, commercial applications for the talk groups are very small, allowing the commercial applications to use multiunicast approach of message delivery easily. However, multiunicast inefficiencies grow rapidly as the number of users increases, not allowing commercial applications to meet public safety standards. In this case, a single large talk group could consumeallofthecapacity.

Because scalability is critical for safety communications, legacy land mobile radio standards address this requirement by allowing each talk group to occupy a separate air interface channel. Some commercial standards also address this via broadcast and multicast services specified in evolving standards [Balachandran et al., 2006]. Therefore, the issues surrounding lowlatency and scalability can be resolved in commercial wireless networks by using enhancements such as broadcast and multicast capabilities. ServiceAvailabilityandQuality Commercial networks, due to there ever increasing service availability and improved revenues, can grow their services offered easily. Increased coverage leads to increased revenues. The commercial networks can also further improve the services available such as data services which are unavailable in the public safety networks today, and also increase coverage and reducecostsifjoinedwiththecommercialnetworks. One of the difficulties in joining these networks is the lack of peer to peer communication, a feature that is needed in regions where there is a lack of well established coverage. This is referred to as talk around or direct mode operation (DMO) [Balachandran et al. 2006]. An alternate approach to thisissueisusingexistingIEEE802.11xbasedwireless LAN technologies with mesh networking solutions that use multihop techniques to extend the coverage area. However, this is not sufficient to ensure service availability for the public safety networks. When any disaster or emergency occurs, it is imperative that communications are available. Some commercial standards currently in place provide preferential scheduling mechanisms for the public safety sector, and also taking into account the quality of the service needsandlinkqualityofthedifferentusers. CommercialIPControl Probablythemostimportantaspectofthemigrationof commercial and public safety networks is the integration of both services to offer a seamless transition. IP enabled services offered in the commercial networks allow for the independent interoperability for IP enabled services to span across different networks such as DSL, cable, wireless local area, satellite, cellular networks, etc. Because the standard employs IEFT protocols such as session initiation protocol (SIP) to gain access to the infrastructure, it provides a common signaling

42

InternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013www.seipub.org/ijace

framework user registration. It also reduces costs by allowing the network to share control access over all SIPbasedapplications. The MCRN is only possible if it can be interconnected with commercial wireless networks to existing land mobile radio networks. Harmonization of signaling are needed for gateways and protocols, sometimes administering vocoders when needed. Encryption is also an area where most public safety agencies do not haveaneedforpresently,butispresentinsomeofthe featuresofcommercialapplications. Although the transition to a MRCN poses several challengesinprovidinggroupvoicebasedpushtotalk interoperability,thecreationofthesenetworksthatare shared across departments and agencies can greatly improve the effectiveness of the public safety agencies communications.Thisapproachpreservestheexisting land mobile radios and takes advantage of commercially developed ready to use technologies and services. However, other ideas exist to create a networkworthyofconsideration. Wireless Mesh Networks Wireless local area networks (WLANs) give mobile users access to a fixed area, fixed network infrastructure. This form of network allows users to roam freely from one place to another within the network coverageusing broadband network coverage. Phenomenal success of this form of technology is due to the decreased cost of deploying access of IEEE 802.11basedcommunications. WirelessMeshArchitecture There are three types of wireless mesh networks: infrastructure, client, and hybrid mesh networks. Infrastructure wireless networks are comprised of an internet gateway or access and mesh routers, which provide the backbone for the wireless infrastructure. Clients access this network by means of a single wirelesshoptothenearestmeshrouterthatactsasthe liason to the gateway. Clients play a passive role, and do not contribute to message transmission of other clientssuchaspacketroutingorforwarding. The second form of mesh architecture is clientmesh architecture. It consists of only user devices and no dedicated hardware such as mesh routers. Each client performs message or packet routing or forwarding to other clients. This form of peer to peer routing and transmissiontootherclientscancreatebottlenecksand slower than desired throughput. This form of mesh is

alsoconsideredatraditionalmobileadhocnetwork. The third form of mesh architecture is hybrid mesh architecture. This form combines both infrastructure and client meshes architectures. The mesh routers form the backbone of the connectivity, while the mobile clients actively participate in network functionality such as routing and packet forwarding. Clients form the dynamic part of this network, being the mesh routers are considered static placed in areas to provide defined coverage areas. The combined architecture is flexible and enjoys the benefits of infrastructure and client mesh networks. When disasters occur, this form of network allows mobile clients to extend the current coverage provided by onlythemeshnetworks. A key ability of the wireless mesh networks is being able to selfconfigure dynamically. Thenodes, or each endpoint,establishandmaintainnetworkconnectivity in an adhoc manner. Essentially, these networks self heal when link failures occur. The ability to selfheal combined with the redundancy of overlapping coverage (when present) provides the wireless mesh networksahighlevelofrobustnessandfaulttolerance. Presently,thestandardsofwirelessmeshnetworksare based on IEEE 802.11, which is being used by most home networks today, therefore is very prevalent. In terms of product development, this is thought to be a key ability of already deployed network capability. Unfortunately, not all mesh network routers allow for easyintegrationwithotherrouters. As mentioned before, MESA defined the standards to which deployable networks are defined and used. Due to their easily deployable capability, mesh wireless networks are considered a promising technology for IAN networks, and allow for the requirementforselfconfiguration. RequirementsofMESAandMeshNetworks As far as interoperability is concerned, all of the mesh routers and clients use IP at the network layer, which makes the interoperability between wireless mesh networksandothernetworkseasy.IPbasednetworks are an ideal platform for communications. Voice and data service support is considered a primary function. In addition, other requirements are internet connectivity, instant messaging, video conferencing, and support for web based services. It should allow for real time transmission of critical services such as lifesupportfeatures,etc.

43

www.seipub.org/ijaceInternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013

Unfortunately, support for mobility is not very effective at anything other than slow speeds. The public safety users have needs that warrant constant communication while traveling at reasonable rates (other than slow), including the speeds at which small aircrafttypicallyfly. When mobile clients move from one mesh router to the next, the communications sessions need to be transferred to the next router. Handoff of the session can be performed by services such as dynamic host configuration protocols, but no standard exists as of today. Also there is no standard as to what speed is reasonable in order to be able to hand off the session, but tests show that mobile clients traveling at up to 180 km per hour have successfully transitioned from one router tothe next. The next mesh router chosen is not always the optimal one, but is usually the next closestrouterfound. Security of mesh networks use IEEE 802.11i, a security standard that is proven to provide privacy and integrity. Security can also be implemented at a higherlevelsuchastransportlayer.Theonlyproblem with the current preexisting protocols is that they assume a trust between existing partners exists between nodes. That assumption does not hold during major disasters when many emergency agenciesaredeployedfromvariousagencies. Robustness of wireless mesh networks must be able to function in potentially adverse and hostile environments. Recent disasters have illustrated the shortcomings of the currently deployed technologies in this area. Fortunately, robustness is a key strength of wireless mesh networks. This is due to the redundancy of the mesh topology with multiple redundant paths for message routing and forwarding, creating a lack of a single point of failure. As previously mentioned, selfhealing networks is also a key strength allowing challenging conditions to establishpathsforcommunications. Scalability of mesh networks is not good. Most networks operate in unlicensed frequency bands and therefore share with other networks, sometimes creating interference. Spectrum allocation could easily reduce this problem. In addition, adding more mesh clients can create a bottleneck in some areas of the network, being the method used to forward packets is the closest client/router. If multiple hops areneeded,thiscouldalsoslowthenetworkdown. The quality of service should be able to provide

reliable voice communications, transmit images, video transmission, and have acceptable quality which should not exceed 250 ms for transmission time [Balachadran etl, al., 2006]. Priority should also be in place in order to ensure timely delivery in times of heavy use. Unfortunately, current standards for wirelessmeshnetworksfailtoprovidestrictqualityof service guarantees, allowing for delays, throughput issues, or even jitter. This is especially prevalent due to issues surrounding multihop transmission from one node to the next when required. This is the same issueasdiscussedabovewhenbottlenecksoccurwhen the shortest route is taken for message forwarding which relies on heavy traffic through a few select nodes. Also worth mentioning, low link quality of a few nodes may also prevent quality of service and poorperformance. Limited scalability and capacity, with quality of service issues prevalent, are currently the shortcomings of wireless mesh networks. The problem is extended when deployment of the infrastructurebecomesalengthyandinvolved process to move routers around to achieve the desired connectivity, due to range, performance, and interference issues. Consequently, deploying the infrastructure often is reliant on gained experiences from previous installations. With these issues however, the main fallbacks of mesh networks are quality of service and scalability [Dilmaghani et al., 2007]. WiMAX and WiFi Creating adhoc communications systems during times of disaster has not been strength of any country trying to coordinate emergency relief workers. Satellite communications are good, but have a long propagation delay and can be non reliable in harsh weather related times. The latest in wireless technologies able to transmit broadband access and high speed transmission is WiMAX [Lu et al., 2006]. WiMAX is ideal for midrange communications, up to 11 km but not comparable to satellite or land mobile radio towers. This is new technology; therefore, not a lotofhardwareisavailableyet. With multiple WiMAX and WiFi nodes (as discussed above in wireless mesh networks IEEE 802.11), mobile personnel and vehicles can form mobile adhoc networks capable of operating across large distances without using wired infrastructures. When coupled with satellite links for even longer range

44

InternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013www.seipub.org/ijace

communications, these technologies may be the answer for the needs of emergency communication safetyagencies. All technologies have their strengths and weaknesses. Exploiting these technologies to create a suitable hybrid of network technologies and architectures for use in disaster situations is a major performance initiative compared to offering a single architecture as hashappenedforyears. Presently telephone lines and cables offer a single point of failure. WiMAX does not use wires or cables, and can offer the same reliability (or better) as that offered by the telephone or cable companies99.999% [Townsend, 2006]. WiMAX uses redundant radios to cover a given market, on a licensed frequency. WiMAX can also handle a wide range of services including mobile data, TV, and well as emergency servicesforpublicsafetyagencies. WiMAX, also known as standard IEEE 802.16 is an evolving standard which enables wireless broadband access anywhere to virtually any device. WiMAX delivers low cost, plentiful bandwidth to limited or nonexistent areas. In addition, WiMAX introduces several additional capabilities such as mobility and enhancedsecurity. One of the potential applications of WiMAX is to provide the backbone for mobile WiFi hotspots [Niyato et al,, 2007]. Because WiMAX and WiFi networks have different protocol architectures, quality of service support mechanisms, adaptation protocols are necessary for integration. Universal mobile telecommunications system is one possibility for integration concerns of WiMAX and WiFi networks, thus also extending cellular connections. Integrating these technologies such as WiFi and WiMAX works due to the IETF standards for WiFi adherence to for higherlayerprotocols. Qualityofserviceisrequiredforrealtimevideo,voice, and data. WiMAX networks have predefined quality of service frameworks based on the IEEE 802.16 standard. The WiMAX framework supports three major service types: unsolicited granted service, polling service, and best effort service. The targeted service identifier is implemented using a traffic scheduler for priority, with service mapping. The protocol adaptation and quality of service issues address the technical issues for the integration of WiMAXandWiFiarchitectures. WiMAX uses three different types of physical layer

technologies: OFDM, SC, and OFDMA. SC is mainly usedinthefixedwirelessaccesssystems,whileOFDM and OFDMAare usedinADSLand WLAN. OFDM is known for its high frequency efficiencies. WiMAX solvestheproblemofthelastmileaccess,beingitcan provideseamlesscoverageoverthenetworks. Scalability of WiMAX infrastructures offers both radio access technology and network technology. Furthermore, WiMAX offers fast data rates and security. Interference issues are addressed through cyclic prefix compared to the channel delay. WiMAX also supports seamless handoff to enable users to go from one station to the next at high vehicular speeds without interrupting the connection. WiMAX supports sleep mode to extend battery life and power efficiency. Some advanced features of mobile WiMAX include complex antenna operations to enhance system performance. These include beamforming, spacetime code, and spatial multiplexing. It improves nonline of sight coverage by utilizing advanced antenna diversityschemes. Multicast and broadcast services offer fast data rates and extended coverage, flexible allocation of radio signals, low power consumption, datacasting and audioandvideostreams,andchannelswitching. Since mobile WiMAX is based on scalable architecture (OFDMA), it can be configured in numerous manners on different bandwidths by system parameter changes. Applications for WiMAX include multiplayer interactive gaming, VOIP and video conferencing, streaming media, web browsing and instant messaging, and media content downloads. Latency andjitterarelowtoassurequalityuserexperiences. Tests have been conducted to evaluate the performance of WiMAX coupled with WiFi and satellite systems. According to these tests, the satellite and WiFi connections posed the biggest weak link but WiMAX performed as expected to provide all needed services. In some circumstances, a maximum of four users could log onto the network and maintain high quality calls (not broadband access). Challenges to WiMAX interoperability include problems such as channel modeling, radio spectrum allocation, and optimization. Health Related Interests One point of interest in research of emergency

45

www.seipub.org/ijaceInternationalJournalofAutomationandControlEngineeringVolume2Issue2,May2013

communications that have been deployed in recent years. Some news worthy events has been discovered thatWiMAXemitsradiationduetothehighfrequency spectrum emission. This has been claimed to cause acute throat conditions, breathing difficulties, and heart palpitations. Some claims of burning skin have alsobeenstated.Atleasteightresidentshavesuffered illeffectssincethewirelessbroadbandwentintoeffect [OMEGANEWS,2005]. Conclusion This article presents an overview and historical background of emergency communications. Included are some of the reasons for recent evolution to rapidly deployable infrastructures. Topics covered include European standards and developments, and the effort of the MESAproject. Technologiesused to convey the support of the ongoing MESA project include wireless mesh networks, WiFi, WiMAX, commercial technologies, and satellite infrastructure. With the introduction of mobile WiMAX with other wireless technologies, it will be interesting to see how these technologiesdevelopinthefuture.
REFERENCES

Boukalov, A; Cross Standard System for Future Public Safety and Emergency Communications. Boukalov, Proceedings of 2004 IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference,Vol.7,pp52245229,2004 DilmaghaniR.B.;RaoR.R.,FutureWirelessCommunication Infrastructure with Application to Emergency

Scenarios, Proceedings of 2007 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless Mobile and MultimediaNetworks(WoWMoM),pp17;2007. Lu, W; Seah W.K.G.; Peh E.W.C; Ge Y., Communications Support for Disaster Recovery Operations using Hybrid Mobile AdHoc Networks. Proceedings of 32th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks, pp 763770, 2007. Miller, L; Haas Z; Page(s) 2829; Public Safety, IEEE CommunicationMagzine,2006,Vol.44,Issue1,pp2929. 2006 Niyato, D; Hosssain, E., Integration of WiMAX and WiFi: Optimal Pricing for Bandwidth Sharing, Niyato, D; Hosssain, E; IEEE Communication Magazine pp 140146, May,2007. OMEGANEWS.http://omega.twoday.net/stories/555926 ProjectMESA,http://www.projectmesa.org Townsend, C., WiMAX Reliability,

Balachandran, K; Budka, K; Chu, T; Doumi, T; Kang, J; MobileResponderCommunication Networks forPublic Safety, IEEE Communication Magazine, pp 5664, January,2006 Balachandran K; Budka, K; Kang, J; Converged Wireless Network Architecture for Homeland Security,

http://www.wimax.com,2006 www.etsi.org www.tetramou.com www.tetrapol.com

Proceedings of 2005 IEEE Military Communication Conference,pp630634,Vol.1,2006.

46