Regional Firms to Tap Call-Box Market

Signal Communications might be the dominant manufacturer in the nation’s roadside call-box industry, but the Woburn, Mass.-based company has been effectively shut out of California’s burgeoning market for the boxes.

The state’s market is booming because county safety authorities, using a $1-per-vehicle registration surcharge, are in the process of buying nearly 12,000 call boxes. Previously, the largest statewide call-box system had been in Florida, where highway officials are gradually building a 3,500-box network.

But Signal has been unable to crack the California market because its systems fail to meet guidelines set by the California Highway Patrol, and Southern California companies with little or no call-box experience have wasted no time in jumping in to fill the void.

Ventura County Contract

San Diego-based Cubic Corp.’s communications subsidiary finally broke into the voice call-box market last month by snaring a contract to install 400 boxes in Ventura County. Cubic had lost two other contracts to a team including Laguna-based GTE Cellular Communications and Anaheim-based Comarco. Those two companies have won contracts for nearly 2,000 boxes along heavily traveled highways in Orange and San Diego counties.

Cubic expects the national market for two-way voice call boxes to grow to nearly 100,000 units during coming years.

So far, only Cubic and the GTE Cellular/Comarco team have won contracts for two-way voice systems in California. However, safety officials in San Bernardino and Riverside counties hope that U. S. Commlink, a Mira Loma-based start-up company, will successfully test a newly designed system in December.

“Outside of California, Signal is the preeminent company in the call-box industry,” according to Bruce Churchill, a San Diego-based consultant with Techplan Corp., a consulting firm that has advised safety officials in Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

In California, Signal has been stymied by a CHP recommendation that counties install call boxes that let motorists talk directly with police dispatchers. Signal’s systems transmit short bursts of data rather than voice.

Experience in L.A. County

The CHP adopted the voice guidelines “largely because of the CHP’s 20-year experience with the Los Angeles County call-box system,” according to Lynne Roberts, a Sacramento-based telecommunications analyst for the agency. The 3,500-unit system in that county regularly handles 1,700 phone calls a day. Roberts said the CHP believes that motorists and safety officials are better served by two-way voice contact.

“The caller can be responded to as rapidly as possible, and the service that (a motorist gets) is directly proportionate to what they need,” Roberts said.

In Orange, San Diego and Ventura counties, officials selected solar-powered systems that utilize cellular phone technology. Other counties are considering more traditional systems that use telephone lines.

There is a chance Signal will eventually enter the market with a voice system that broadcasts radio signals. The CHP is reviewing its guidelines and could determine that non-voice systems are appropriate in some locations, Roberts said.

Prices for the state-of-the-art systems developed by Cubic and GTE/Comarco have dropped dramatically, largely because of competition between the companies.

“There’s some merit to not being the first to install a system,” according to Kerry Forsythe, assistant director of the San Bernardino Associated Governments agency.

In 1987, when Orange County’s call-box authority installed its first box, a single unit cost $4,600, according to Forsythe. Earlier this year, San Diego paid about $3,000 for each box, Forsythe said, and Ventura County last month agreed to pay about $2,700.

GTE Cellular viewed the call-box market as one more niche for its cellular technology, while Cubic and Comarco, both defense contractors, “have rightfully decided that it’s a good time to diversify out of the defense arena,” said Churchill.

Competition for past contracts in California has been fierce.

When Orange County awarded Comarco a June, 1987, contract to install 1,000 boxes there, Cubic unsuccessfully challenged the award in court. A few months later, Cubic lodged another unsuccessful lawsuit after Comarco, acting as a supplier to GTE Cellular Communications Corp., won a contract to install about 1,000 boxes along San Diego County freeways.

No Plans for Suit

GTE Cellular/Comarco has no plans to sue Cubic in Ventura County, according to Tom Franza, general manager of Comarco’s digital products division.

“Cubic bought the (Ventura) job (by submitting a very low bid), which was probably the right thing because they couldn’t keep on losing every time,” Franza said.

“We’re pretty happy about the Ventura award because it gives us the credibility and experience we needed” to compete for the dozen or so remaining contracts, said Cubic Communications Chief Executive Keith Burnett, who acknowledged that Cubic needed to submit a low bid in order to win a contract and thereby establish itself as a bona fide contender.

During the coming year, Cubic and GTE/Comarco will probably compete for several contracts, including a joint proposal by San Bernardino and Riverside counties and a hefty order from a regional consortium that could include as many as nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Eye on L.A. County

Cubic and GTE/Comarco are also watching Los Angeles County, which is studying how to upgrade and, if possible, expand its aging system. That system--a traditional telephone system with wires buried under the freeways--is prone to breakdowns and vandalism.

But motorists used it to place more than 50,000 calls to police dispatchers during October, according to CHP figures. The daily call total soars to 3,000 a day when bad weather snarls traffic, up from 1,700 on sunny days, according to Peter DeHaan, a transportation analyst with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.

“We want to find out how to make it more reliable, and to also make it operate better,” DeHaan said. “There has been a problem with people calling and getting a busy signal.”

The computerized, two-way voice systems being installed by Cubic and GTE/Comarco are far more advanced than traditional call-box systems.

New units can automatically alert police to the caller’s location, a time-saving feature that will trim response times when dispatchers are unable to communicate with motorists who are not fluent in English, DeHaan said.

The boxes can be programmed to automatically report that the device is working properly. And the computerized devices will alert the CHP if vandals attempt to deface or steal the boxes.

$6,000 Per Unit

Non-voice systems use equally advanced technology, according to Michael Lambert, Signal’s chief operating officer.

At about $6,000 per unit, Signal’s system is more expensive to install than the cellular technology offered by Cubic and GTE/Comarco. But Lambert maintained that Signal’s boxes are far less expensive to operate and maintain because radio systems are cheaper to operate than cellular systems.

So far, non-voice systems seem to be more popular outside of California. By year’s end, Signal will have won contracts in nine states, Lambert said. Signal’s largest system is in Florida, where the state is installing the boxes along interstate highways in rural areas.

“Eighty-five percent of the calls are for service--a broken fan belt or they need a tow,” Lambert said. “Our receiver/decoder tells which box they’re at and what their needs are.”

Motorists generate the electrical power needed to broadcast the signal by pressing a button. The boxes contain buttons that send a variety of messages--from “Send a wrecker to tow my car” to “There’s been an accident and we need the authorities,” Lambert said.

But Roberts, the CHP telecommunications analyst, said some states are having second thoughts about Signal’s call boxes. “Police report that motorists are pushing the wrong buttons, and (police are) also getting prank calls,” Roberts said.

Lambert disputed that claim and said Signal’s automatic data transmission systems can actually unclog busy dispatching systems by eliminating unnecessary voice contact between motorists and dispatchers.

“There’s no question that, in general, voice is still the best way to communicate,” acknowledged Lambert. “But when it comes to motorist aid, I challenge (the CHP’s) contention that voice is the best system.”

Churchill, the consultant, said he is uncertain whether voice or data systems will prevail outside of California. Instead, given rapid technological advances, future systems might “combine the best of both worlds” by bolstering performance for motorists and cutting costs for safety authorities, he said.