Additional thoughts on the PRRD 911 Proposal

Now that we have a lot more details about what is being proposed (see <http://lasqueti.ca/node/4838>), we can start to try to answer many of the questions we posed earlier. What we've written below is NOT OFFICIAL. It is based on what we've distilled from reading the provided material. Please read the source material if you have any questions, and, as always, corrections are requested if we've got anything wrong.

> 1a) Who exactly is proposing installing a repeater system?

The repeater system is being proposed by North Island 911, as a result of PRRD requesting and them agreeing to expand coverage to include Lasqueti.

> Is this a Telus proposal?

No. The need for a repeater (or another solution) is a consequnce of Telus' decision to discontinue pager service.

Telus will be involved in 911 service only to the extent that they transfer calls and location infromation to ECOMM. (See diagram on page 203)

> Who would be paying for the system?

We would. The system would be paid for by the taxpayers of Lasqueti, who would, through additional taxes to PRRD, remunerate the North Island 911 corporation for their services.

> Who would be constructing the system?

Most likely a contractor of North Island 911.

> Who would be operating the system?

Most likely North Island 911. Maintenance would be most likely contracted out. Radio licenses would most most likely be held by North Island 911.

> 1b) A repeater for exactly _what_ purpose?

To provide paging and voice services for emergency dispatch and communication between first responders, fire department staff, North Island 911 staff and other emergency services.

> Is this intended to replace the paging system currently used?

Yes.

> Is this an attempt to install a cell tower on Lasqueti?

No. However, if amendments to the land use bylaw to permit this use, it becomes harder to deny other applications for towers and communication services. So this could indirectly lead to the community being less able to choose if they want other telecommunication towers on the island.

> How will a new repeater facilitate continuation/enhancement of emergency dispatching on the island?

1. The repeater allows continuation of service after Telus has discontinued service.
2. The repeater significantly increase coverage compared to the current system.
3. The repeater provides higher reliability of service, as it includes built-in redundancy to prevent single points of failure.
4. The repeater provides enhanced communication, beyond just paging, such as voice communication.

This significantly improves the ability to dispatch and communicate, which results in a measurable improvement in the speed and accuracy of dispatching emergency services. Response time improvements save lives (such as in the event of a heart attack/stroke), and save property, such in the event of a quicker response to a house fire.

> In the interest of transparency to the community, it would be useful to know exactly what type of radio system.

The proposed system is a dual-frequency VHF repeater system.

> on what frequency?

The proposed system would be using 158.925 MHz and 154.040 MHz, frequency bands commonly used for paging services. Other frequencies may be used for voice communication.

> With what transmission power?

Unknown. Likely to be below 100 watts.

> How high of an antenna tower is being proposed to be installed?

15.5 feet.

If Mt. Trematon is not available, 250 - 300 feet (times two).

> 1d) This site is difficult to access. How would the equipment be installed?

The equipment would most likely be delivered by helicopter, and bolted to the rock upon Mt. Trematon.

> How would fuel be delivered? (as there would be a diesel or propane generator there, since this equipment cannot operate on renewable energy alone)

They claim that solar power alone would be sufficient. Based on our experiences on Lasqueti, and knowing how often Mt. Trematon is cloaked in clouds/mists, we are skeptical that this can be achieved during the fall/winter months.

> Would a helicopter landing pad be required?

No. This is a very small installation compared to a typical remote tower/support building.

We're more used to systems that look like the below:

• http://www.towercommunications.ca/Tower_Communications_Index/imag002.jpg
• http://www.mvdirona.com/Trips/HakaiRecreationArea2002/images/128-2867_IM...

> What happens in the middle of the winter when something goes wrong?

This is unanswered by the materials provided.

> 1e) The tower and antennas would need to be protected against lightning.

This is somewhat mitigated by having no metallic parts or significant ground paths. However, due to the height and location, there is still a low risk of lightning damage. Due to the low frequency of lightning in this area, this would most likely be addressed by replacement, rather than avoidance, and lightning damage would result in service disruptions. (See further discussions of system reliability below)

> (grounding) is a very extensive (and expensive) process for rock outcroppings like Mr. Trematon. This would require long cabling runs over the rock, and would expand the footprint of disturbance significantly.

It appears that they are proposing to not ground the system.

> 1f) Once a tower is installed, it is MANDATORY that it be shared for other purposes. That means that no additional consultation or community control over expansion, addition of cell transmitters, etc.

Due to the type of installation, it is not suitable for sharing purposes, so this is not a risk. However, as mentioned earlier, once this land use is permitted, it becomes more difficult to exclude this land use in other parts of the island.

> 2c) Would this require creating a formal inventory of all structures on the island?

Yes. The PRRD would be building a database. Which structures would be included or not included is not (yet) known (to us).

> 2d) There are also many properties that have multiple structures off a private driveway. A numbering system based on public roads won't be sufficient for dispatch, and house numbers may give a false sense of knowledge.

This appears to be a concern that the PRRD also shares.

---------------------------------------------------

Now, here are the new questions that arise from the material:

4a) North Island's "alternative" appears to be extreme. It strains credibility to claim that there are no alternatives between a small single repeater and two 250 - 300 foot towers on each end of the island.

Furthermore, building such towers is a complex regulatory undertaking even if supported by the community. It requires community, local government, Industry Canada, NAV Canada and First Nations consultation and approval. This "alternative" would easily take one to two years to construct.

5a) How did we get from the PRRD passing a resolution in September 17th to "explore" this to them passing a resolution in January 6th to adopt this without any meaningful consultation of the community? There were no posts to the mailing list, or in the Island Tides, nor is it apparent that the consequences of adopting this path (Tower on Mt. Trematon, etc) were known before the decision was made. This lack of consultation (or even notification) represents a failure of our democratic system.

Changes that effect our community like this (house numbering, possible changes to Land Use Bylaws, etc) should not be decided without community involvement.

6a) I would not consider a one day trip plus some map-based propagation modelling "extensive". 

7a) I personally find the conventional 911 system in it's entirety to be overly complex and prone to failures, especially during catastrophic events when emergency communication are most needed.

Specifically, to successfully dispatch a 911 call, the following components need to be operational:

1. Telus land lines need to be operating

2. The Telus switching equipment on Lasqueti needs to be operating

3. The radio link to Vancouver Island needs to be operating

4. The telephone network connecting Vancouver Island to Vancouver needs to be operating

5. Vancouver ECOMM needs to be operational and connected

6. ECOMM needs to have communication to North Island 911

7. North Island 911 needs to be operational and connected

8. North Island 911 needs to be connected to their Dogwood Tower

9. The Dogwood Tower needs to be operational

10. The Dogwood Tower needs to be connected to the Little Mountain Tower

11. The Little Mountain Tower needs to be operational

12. The Little Mountain Tower needs to be connected to the Lasqueti Repeater

13. The Lasqueti repeater needs to be operational

14. The Lasqueti repeater needs to be able to contact local responders.

All this to connect an emergency request from one part of Lasqueti to another.

While the people building these systems are professional and much engineering has gone into making this as reliable as possible, it simply has too many moving parts, and is fragile.

Imagine a major earthquake, or a hurricane like Freda back in 1962. Even the most basic failure analysis shows that it is likely that we would be left to our own devices, without service during these events. While this does not mean that joining the 911 services as proposed is not worthwhile (since there are many advantages it provides during normal conditions), it is not sufficient, and we as a community should be better prepared.

Alternatives do exist that are far more resilient. For example, a local radio system could be set up at several sites on the island to facilitate communications in the event of a disaster. Or emergency locator beacons used by hikers and backcountry skiers could be issued. Finally, we should consider having several satellite phones to allow for emergency communication to the outside world if all the local infrastructure is down.

We hope that the above is helpful and clarifies the discussion.

Peace,

David & Laura