Colorado DTRS discussion update
From the Author - Thank you for the kind words, folks. I agree that a lot of this has to do with Motorola needing to feed the beast and they have everyone swallowing the bait It's the way the "system" is designed, however. My intention for the post was to make sure that those folks who have the responsibility to expend taxpayer dollars do so wisely, stepping back and looking at all options on the table before proceeding (which many are doing in this case given the rather lively discussion regarding the survival of the existing network structure we know as the DTRS.
Oh, and Tait Radio is in the process of proposing a P25 Phase II hosted solution for several Front Range system operators (there are seven FCC licensees that comprise the ownership of the DTRS) that cuts the cost of ownership by as much as half that of Motorola. To which Motorola responds, "We can do that too." My opinion is that if we can force a solution that is best for the taxpayer and supports the needs of the public safety community, so be it.
Phase 2 is only being pushed because of actions by the FCC to move 700MHz in this direction, of course. So long as the FCC delays this rule, us taxpayers have some time to plead with our elected officials and their appointees to move cautiously.
Oh, and for those of you at IWCE a few weeks back they did a wonderful demonstration of the Inter-Subsystem Interface (ISSI) and the Console Subsystem Interface (CSSI) seemlessly integrating P25 radio systems from Motorola, Tait, Cassidian (Tait), Harris and others and IP console manufacturers from Telex, Avtec, Motorola, Zetron and others. Shows what can happen when you allow true open standards systems to work together.