Kansas City, Mo - Fixing public safety radio system looms as another big cost for KC

Thunderbolt · #1 (**permalink**) 01-30-2009, 05:36 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- As if the Kansas City Council didn’t have enough financial headaches, it can add one more: the need for a multimillion-dollar public safety radio system.

Fixing public safety radio system looms as another big cost for KC - Kansas City Star

KAA951 · #2 (**permalink**) 01-30-2009, 08:35 AM

Everyone around KCMO is going with Motorola P-25 systems.

So, they will probably go with OpenSky!

Hey, they did it last time! They went EDACS and KCK, Johnson County etc were all Motorola Type II systems.

Hoofy · #3 (**permalink**) 01-30-2009, 02:11 PM

Here's a report that was just given MO about radio ops.

http://www.dps.mo.gov/homelandsecuri...309Rev3CDW.pdf

PVPD730 · #4 (**permalink**) 01-30-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAA951

Everyone around KCMO is going with Motorola P-25 systems.

So, they will probably go with OpenSky!

Hey, they did it last time! They went EDACS and KCK, Johnson County etc were all Motorola Type II systems.

Nope, per the RFP (found here: Compliant Radio Network) the new radio system will be P-25 compliant when they finally decide to replace their current EDACS system.

mancow · #5 (**permalink**) 01-30-2009, 04:51 PM

They have mentioned SIMULCAST too. That will suck for us that want to listen outside the City limits.

PVPD730 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-30-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mancow

They have mentioned SIMULCAST too. That will suck for us that want to listen outside the City limits.

No doubt, especially for those who live in Johnson County, KS, Cass County, MO and points south of that.

snakecharmer · #7 (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PVPD730

No doubt, especially for those who live in Johnson County, KS, Cass County, MO and points south of that.

I apologize in advance for my ignorance but can someone explain to me exactly what SIMULCAST is and why it is bad in this application?

slicerwizard · #8 (**permalink**) 02-03-2009, 11:53 PM

Simulcast refers to wide area coverage achieved by having multiple transmitter sites that transmit exactly the same audio on exactly the same RF frequencies. Problems relating to RX of out of phase signals (e.g. by RXing signals from two sites that are at different distances) are reduced by engineering the system to provide a stronger signal from one site in any overlap areas (so the FM capture effect takes over).

Simulcast is not necessarily bad for this particular application, but scanner users run in to two problems:

- Many scanners don't handle simulcast signals very well.

- Many scanner listeners monitor from outside the engineered coverage area and have to deal with multiple out of phase signals that arrive with similar RF power levels, so there is no capture effect to filter out the weaker signal(s). The usual solution is a beam aimed so as to null out the most problematic signal.

PVPD730 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 08:45 AM

Sorry to resurrect the thread, but I had to share this little gem for those who are interested:

http://www.kcmo.org/ads.nsf/eb0743e765fb8f8a86256cca005d9e23/e6a54b7172019571862574ff00511148/$FILE/EV0593- Radio RFP- FINAL 081308.pdf

That would be the RFP for KCMO's new P-25 system. If you scroll down to pages 31 and 32 and read sections 3.2.3/3.2.4, it looks like there will be tons of encryption with the new radios. Unless I misread something, it appears they are seriously considering encryption on all PD comms. Bad news for us KC scanner folk if that's the case

EDIT: Couldn't get the link to show, so you'll have to cut and paste the link into your browser if you wish to read the documents. Sorry.

ILMRadioMan · #10 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 09:11 AM

I am a former Pleasant Hill resident...that will make trouble for me when I travel to see my parents.

james32746 · #11 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 09:40 AM

If that's the case the end result would look like the Orlando, FL P25 TRS with all LE communications encrypted and all Fire/EMS communications not encrypted.

snakecharmer · #12 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PVPD730

Sorry to resurrect the thread, but I had to share this little gem for those who are interested:

http://www.kcmo.org/ads.nsf/eb0743e765fb8f8a86256cca005d9e23/e6a54b7172019571862574ff00511148/$FILE/EV0593- Radio RFP- FINAL 081308.pdf

That would be the RFP for KCMO's new P-25 system. If you scroll down to pages 31 and 32 and read sections 3.2.3/3.2.4, it looks like there will be tons of encryption with the new radios. Unless I misread something, it appears they are seriously considering encryption on all PD comms. Bad news for us KC scanner folk if that's the case

EDIT: Couldn't get the link to show, so you'll have to cut and paste the link into your browser if you wish to read the documents. Sorry.

Figures....I made the jump to digital to be ready for the new technology and before that technology comes online they come up with something else that keeps me out of the loop. I guess I should have just bought 2 analog scanners instead of the digital. Its been pretty pointless so far. I dont listen to KCMO all that much but I can see the kansas side following suit.

mancow · #13 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 11:07 AM

Well, so much for that wonderful concept of interop.
This is the end...

Three modes of encrypted digital voice operation are desired:
3.2.4.1. Unit-to-unit, where conversations in an encrypted talk group are
secure. These can be monitored at a dispatch or control point.
3.2.4.2. Dispatcher-to-unit, where conversations between the City’s
Consolidated Communication Centers, Agnes Backup Center and
field units are secure.
3.2.4.3. Unit-to-telephone network, where conversations between encrypted
units and the switched telephone network are secure.

ILMRadioMan · #14 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mancow

Well, so much for that wonderful concept of interop.
This is the end...

Three modes of encrypted digital voice operation are desired:
3.2.4.1. Unit-to-unit, where conversations in an encrypted talk group are
secure. These can be monitored at a dispatch or control point.
3.2.4.2. Dispatcher-to-unit, where conversations between the City’s
Consolidated Communication Centers, Agnes Backup Center and
field units are secure.
3.2.4.3. Unit-to-telephone network, where conversations between encrypted
units and the switched telephone network are secure.

How does this remove interoperability?

Surely if they need to talk to some other agency, they can change the channel on their radio.

mancow · #15 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 04:16 PM

Interoperability in the user sense, as in the ability to monitor activities in real time.

PVPD730 · #16 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

3.2.4.2. Dispatcher-to-unit, where conversations between the City’s
Consolidated Communication Centers, Agnes Backup Center and
field units are secure.

This is the one that really confused me. Does it mean that certain transmissions of a sensitive nature will be encrypted (i.e. dispatching dead body calls, tactical comms,etc) or will it be all routine LE traffic? Right now, KCPD dispatchers routinely use instant encryption when dispatching "sensitive" calls for service, so maybe it will be the same thing on the new system? I guess we'll find out when it goes live.