RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Colorado Radio Discussion Forum

Colorado Radio Discussion Forum Forum for discussing Radio Information in the State of Colorado.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:07 AM
jimmnn's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 14,060
Arrow The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes

One opinion

The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes - push to talk | First Responder

Jim<
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:30 AM
greenthumb's Avatar
Colorado DB Administrator
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,855
Default

These upgrades always make me laugh - it's the same thing across the country. Here's what I see:

$13.9M to buy a system upgrade, which allows more radio IDs (manufacturer limitation...they should have known that systems are getting big), the capability to go to P25 phase two (capability only, no actual functionality) and Windows Updates (hmmm).

But the users still need to buy consoles to go to P25 phase two, the users still need to buy repeaters that are capable of P25 phase two and the users still need to buy radios that do P25 phase two. For all of the money that Motorola is going to make with users buying phase two infrastructure (medium margin repeaters, high margin consoles and probably a load of really high margin radios), this is a very steep price tag for software and some hardware.

Given the business opportunity that this upgrade will provide to Motorola, they can certainly do can do better on the price than this. Is anyone at the State negotiating a price with them? Has any negotiating or haggling of this price been done?

I bet not
__________________
Colorado Database Administrator
Forums Moderator
Rules and guidelines for forum post content

Last edited by greenthumb; 03-24-2013 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2013, 12:09 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 168
Default Re: The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes

That was really well written. Even I understand it.....ha ha.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2013, 12:26 PM
poltergeisty's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: May 2004
Location: RLG, Fly heading 053, intercept 315 DVV, look for the SAM
Posts: 3,410
Default

Is the Public Safety Broadband (LTE) program used for the laptops in police cars or do they use CDMA or some other cell phone technology? Just curious.
__________________
Sent from my PSX emulator.

POLICING THE POLICE
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2013, 1:10 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: N. Colorado
Posts: 60
Question

I assume that when that happens I won't be able to monitor Longmont off of Sunset. What would be the options then? Use Bald-Mead or Gunbarrel? And is there any time line for them to go to Phase 2.

Mark
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:36 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 168
Default Re: The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes

Sounds like a long way to go still. I think the PSR-800 does phase 2 if you can find one.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2013, 10:13 PM
avery_k's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 19
Default

Thanks for the link, jimmnn. Very well written, and I like the emphasis on spending taxpayer dollars wisely instead of swallowing the vendor rep's line and just buying all shiny new tech. It's something we don't hear nearly enough nowadays.
Sounds like the timeline for P25 Phase II is 12/31/2016 for 700MHz, with a possible waiver out to 12/31/24, so my PSR500 should work for a little while yet, even though there isn't any 700MHz around Fort Collins (that I'm aware of).
On the Windows side, that's completely understandable, especially if the consoles contact the Internet in any way. XP is going out to pasture next year, so to stay current with updates, etc., you need to upgrade. At any rate, I'm not too worried about my radio becoming obsolete before it either wears out or dies altogether.
__________________
--
If I didn't hear it on my PSR-500, it never happened!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 9:47 AM
Member
   
Join Date: May 2007
Location: mnhall
Posts: 4
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2013, 10:11 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 168
Default Re: The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes

Hey, thanks for the info. I'm curious if you've heard phase 2. Does it sound any worse than phase 1? Seems like you would have to give something up unless the technology has just improved that much.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2013, 10:27 AM
Member
   
Join Date: May 2007
Location: mnhall
Posts: 4
Default Phase 1 vs. Phase 2

To give you a very simplified answer, Phase 1 is 12.5KHz channel spacing using FDMA. Phase 2 is the same 12.5KHz channel spacing but split into two time slots (TDMA) for an effective 6.25KHz channel width. This MotoTRBO or any of the other offering using the Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) standard. Is it better? The TDMA approach offers a lot of very cool features such as two simultaneous voice conversations in the same channel or one voice and one data (think GPS tracking, SMS messaging, etc.). As current P25 Phase 1 systems replace their infrastructure (their old Quantars), they are replacing them with Phase 2 upgradeable GTR repeaters (speaking MotoSpeak here). Newer offerings from the other vendors (Harris, Tait, etc.) are all coming on line as Phase 2 upgradeable because that is where the P25 standard is migrating to (eventually).

According to conversations with Jefferson, Douglas and Arapahoe County radio system administrators, they will be running their gear in Dynamic Mixed Mode so that Phase 1 subscribers can still operate on the networks (but the conversations move down to the Phase 1 mode). A Denver-based Harris engineer I know says that they are working on a way to have simultaneous Phase 1 and Phase 2 conversations keeping the subscribers in their native modes of operation. Requires translation back at the zone controller in order to function effectively. My guess is Moto is either ahead of them or hot on their heels.

These systems are still trunked. Haven't had anyone give a good explanation on how Phase 2 radios will work in simplex mode. Going to have to think that one through. Anyone have a better or more accurate answer?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2013, 9:45 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 168
Default Re: The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes

Thanks again for the info. Interesting stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2013, 12:46 PM
grem467's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnhall View Post
. Haven't had anyone give a good explanation on how Phase 2 radios will work in simplex mode. Going to have to think that one through. Anyone have a better or more accurate answer?
Phase II TDMA is a (currently) trunking only methodolgy. The radios all operate Phase I on conventional. There is nothing in TIA102 defining conventional (or trunked control channel) in TDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2013, 4:42 PM
greenthumb's Avatar
Colorado DB Administrator
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,855
Default

^ correct
__________________
Colorado Database Administrator
Forums Moderator
Rules and guidelines for forum post content
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-03-2013, 8:56 AM
Member
   
Join Date: May 2007
Location: mnhall
Posts: 4
Default Phase 2

Thanks for the explanation.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-03-2013, 1:14 PM
rfburns's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnhall View Post
Newer offerings from the other vendors (Harris, Tait, etc.) are all coming on line as Phase 2 upgradeable because that is where the P25 standard is migrating to (eventually).
Interpreted as: because that is where the P25 $dollars$ are for vendors.

ISSI does seem to work well in the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) complex. I guess we'll find out first hand when the new Westminster system comes on line.

Thanks for the nice write-up Mark, Ed and Jack.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-03-2013, 1:48 PM
greenthumb's Avatar
Colorado DB Administrator
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfburns View Post
Interpreted as: because that is where the P25 $dollars$ are for vendors.
Not really...a phase two flash or feature upgrade is only running around $150 per radio. Infrastructure has a somewhat higher cost per base station, but it's not going to let a sales guy buy a new pool for his backyard

Quote:
ISSI does seem to work well in the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) complex. I guess we'll find out first hand when the new Westminster system comes on line.
You might see it before then elsewhere...
__________________
Colorado Database Administrator
Forums Moderator
Rules and guidelines for forum post content
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2013, 5:39 PM
grem467's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,035
Default The God's Honest Truth About the Colorado DTRS Changes

When I was in Colorado I noticed a lot of the agencies were still using xts3000s. Even the ones that have xts5000s will need significantly more than 150.00 to do phase 2
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2013, 10:23 PM
greenthumb's Avatar
Colorado DB Administrator
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,855
Default

If you buy a new radio, yes - it is much more than $150. I was speaking to the cost of the actual feature.
__________________
Colorado Database Administrator
Forums Moderator
Rules and guidelines for forum post content
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2013, 3:02 PM
RFsponge's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NOT in Alaska, damnit!
Posts: 517
Question Uniden: Hardware or Firmware?

Hello all- Quick question.

I've scoured the forums without finding a totally on-target answer. I'll also PM UPMan. Very simply, will Uniden radios (996T, 396T, 996XT, 396XT, HP1 and HP2) be able to monitor Phase II with a firmware upgrade or will new radios (possibly still in development) need to be purchased in the near future?

Looks like the newer GREs will be able to handle it.

Thanks in advance!
__________________
Light fuse and get away!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2013, 6:33 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 733
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFsponge View Post
Hello all- Quick question.

I've scoured the forums without finding a totally on-target answer. I'll also PM UPMan. Very simply, will Uniden radios (996T, 396T, 996XT, 396XT, HP1 and HP2) be able to monitor Phase II with a firmware upgrade or will new radios (possibly still in development) need to be purchased in the near future?
The only scanner currently capable of p25 phase 2 is the PSR-800, if you can find/afford one. None of the other GREs can do it.

As to the Unidens: they have been tight lipped on phase 2 plans.

Phase 2 is TDMA, which requires a different type of receiver design so firmware alone isn't always all there is to it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions