|
We want to make sure that the association remains an up-to-date and relevant association for users of critical communications – and TETRA is one very important plank in that. But there are other things that we feel we should be addressing. There are perhaps other user communities that aren’t currently using TETRA but may also be looking for harmonized solutions for critical broadband – people like the Tetrapol users and users of other technologies. We would like to be able to meet their needs as well. One of the critical things in the coming years is going to be educating the people who make decisions as to why public networks cannot do the job. If you are running a police force and somebody says, ‘We want to build out a dedicated network and it’s going to cost this many hundreds of millions of pounds to do so’, the first thing they will say is: ‘But my daughter can do all this sort of stuff you’re talking about on her smartphone, and she does it for £25 per month. So why do you need to build your own dedicated network?’ It is not going to be an easy task to really get these people to understand the limitations of public networks. Total support“I want to make one thing clear”, Phil Godfrey emphasizes. “The fact that we are changing the name does not imply any reduction in support for TETRA and indeed the opposite is likely to be the case. We will continue to promote TETRA as widely as possible and will continue to provide all of the services in interoperability testing. And we will continue to encourage innovation in TETRA products and TETRA services. So the support of the Association for TETRA remains absolutely 100 per cent.” (中國(guó)集群通信網(wǎng) | 責(zé)任編輯：陳曉亮) |