Press Review

The official magazine for the British association of public safety communication officers.

Reader view point - OPEN LETTER

Dear EDITOR,

I feel now is the time for me to express my views on TETRA and the forthcoming PSRCP project having spent the last year sitting on the fence. I became tangled up in TETRA when a TETRA terminal manufacturer employed me as a project manager for TETRA development. It soon became apparent that this technology and the politics surrounding it was far from being a dream technology and was in fact a cauldron of false promises and underhand dealings which could cost the British emergency services dearly.

I pose these questions which irritate me constantly regarding this project :

1 - How is it a fair and competitive tender when there is only one organisation offering a single technology supplied and developed by its partners ?

2 - If the TETRA standard is an open standard, why is it that only Quadrants partners Motorola and Nokia can inter operate with each other ?

3 - On the subject of interoperability. Why is it that the only interoperability trials are to be carried out by Teledenmark, financed by Motorola and Nokia ? And why do they refuse to allow all the other terminal manufacturers to carry out interoperability trials (Apart from Simoco who coincidentally discovered that even though the adhered to the standard their terminals could not inter operate with the two big boys) ?

4 - Is it fair that the emergency services of the UK should be subject to such a cartel of manufacturers who could be in a position to ensure that prices were kept to a premium ?

5 - Wouldn't a national rollout of a Quadrant TETRA solution close the market to all fair competition ?

6 - Wouldn't a regional rollout with ITT's at a regional level be far more competitive ?

Don't get me wrong I am very much in favour of the digitisation of our emergency services communications infrastructure. But at what cost ? Ł1.5 Billion, to a private consortium is immoral if not illegal. A TETRAPOL solution would cost Ł0.15 Billion. One tenth of the cost. As soon as TETRAPOL is mentioned within the TETRA click either untruths regarding its capability or racist views are expressed as to its capability as a viable technology.

Forget the fact that it and its ancillary equipment (i.e gateways, repeaters etc) is available now.

Forget the fact that it is a proven open standard with over 30 manufacturers involved in its development.

Forget the fact that the entire length and breadth of France (including the Alps) was provided with 97% coverage for Ł0.3 billion, including terminals.

Forget the fact that is easily coped with the recent world cup, so much so that international emergency services jumped on it as a cheap, commercial off the shelf technology.

I'm not pro TETRAPOL ; I'm pro fair open competititon.

With articles in every communications journals that communications officers read blowing the trumpet of TETRA, it is not surprising that when they finally find out that there are other technologies out there at least as capable if not more so, available at a fraction of the cost, they look in disbelief.

Please be aware of the facts surrounding this emotive issue and ensure that your journal does not become a publicity bandwagon for these companies.

I'm a tax payer as are you and I would like to think that those making the decisions are fully informed before presenting these companies blank cheques.

Regard,

Name and Address Supplied.

Extract from The BAPCO Journal, Press release, May/June 1999,