MI - Police scanners go silent - Page 3

ibagli · #41 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 2:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Wow, a whole new argument against encryption.(somehow I am not surprised)

It's not new. I've seen it before, along with demands that agencies that use encryption or non-scannable digital modes buy all of the scanners as compensation for the terrible inconvenience they have caused

. Why someone would take the money from what they think is a corrupt secret police force that is violating their rights as taxpayers, I don't know.

idontknow82 · #42 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 4:51 PM

N_jay....How many user names do you have here?
Apparently you kind of people are the reason why these agencies think its ok encrypt, you shrug and say OH OK, with NO questioning as to the real reason why there doing it. Now thats stupid thinking.

N_Jay · #43 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

N_jay....How many user names do you have here?

One. The policy against multiple user names is strictly enforces, I have been told.

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Apparently you kind of people are the reason why these agencies think its ok encrypt,

First, let me explain a FACT. It IS ok for them to encrypt.
Your opinion does not change that FACT.
Your not acknowledging it, does not change that FACT.
Your arguments against it, do not change that FACT.
and your stupid rationalizations do not change that FACT.

As a matter of fact, I have not expressed my OPINION on encryption in this thread (or any other that I can recall recently).
Your disdain for encryption colors your thinking so much that you have missed that little FACT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

you shrug and say OH OK, with NO questioning as to the real reason why there doing it.

Here is where you have it so wrong. I work with the agencies and help them determine what their needs are. What features and functions they require in their systems.
So I ask lots of questions, and know many of the good (and some of the not so good) reasons they chose to encrypt or chose not to encrypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Now thats stupid thinking.

No, I think you have taken up the championing of stupid thinking in this thread.
But, be happy, there are some on the other side that use just as poor logic.

idontknow82 · #44 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibagli

It's not new. I've seen it before, along with demands that agencies that use encryption or non-scannable digital modes buy all of the scanners as compensation for the terrible inconvenience they have caused

. Why someone would take the money from what they think is a corrupt secret police force that is violating their rights as taxpayers, I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Jay

One. The policy against multiple user names is strictly enforces, I have been told.

First, let me explain a FACT. It IS ok for them to encrypt.
Your opinion does not change that FACT.
Your not acknowledging it, does not change that FACT.
Your arguments against it, do not change that FACT.
and your stupid rationalizations do not change that FACT.

As a matter of fact, I have not expressed my OPINION on encryption in this thread (or any other that I can recall recently).
Your disdain for encryption colors your thinking so much that you have missed that little FACT.

Here is where you have it so wrong. I work with the agencies and help them determine what their needs are. What features and functions they require in their systems.
So I ask lots of questions, and know many of the good (and some of the not so good) reasons they chose to encrypt or chose not to encrypt.

No, I think you have taken up the championing of stupid thinking in this thread.
But, be happy, there are some on the other side that use just as poor logic.

Law enforcement isn't logical, if they were they wouldn't be using encryption. There is NO logic in government whatsoever.

So telling me I am not logical or stupid isn't going to change anything. I just view it differently.

KC8YTK · #45 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPSCS

Your title is very misleading. It's not like the entire State Of Michigan is doing this. Far from it. It's a very small portion of S.E. Michigan, in the L.P.

Agreed. Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS) is by far a superior system. It is the largest trunked radio system of its kind in North America and coordinates communication for the other 82 counties in Michigan with no problem. I have used MPSCS and for large scale emergencies it is most certainly the best choice.

N_Jay · #46 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Law enforcement isn't logical,

What are you talking about?

Do you grasp the concept of what a FACT is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

if they were they wouldn't be using encryption.

In your OPINION, I presume?

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

There is NO logic in government whatsoever.

Another OPINION, I presume?

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

So telling me I am not logical or stupid isn't going to change anything.

Obviously so.
Encryption remains available and legal.
And you remain . . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

I just view it differently.

View? No, I think believe is a better word.

idontknow82 · #47 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Jay

What are you talking about?

Do you grasp the concept of what a FACT is?

In your OPINION, I presume?

Another OPINION, I presume?

Obviously so.
Encryption remains available and legal.
And you remain . . . .

View? No, I think believe is a better word.

I think you fail to see that the government messes up everything they touch. And you remain....

kd8ati · #48 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 6:22 PM

What I would like to know is how in just a few posts we go from Opensky to encrypted? In MY opinion, encryption is a good thing, for certain talk groups and/or agencies. SWAT and detectives are part of that group. However, for a dispatch talk group to be encrypted is in my opinion, a waste of the taxpayers money.

As far as opensky goes, it is MY opinion that it has been and will continue to be a black money hole. The contract was awarded to Opensky in Feb of 2002. That is a FACT. Its original completion date was sometime in late '04 or early '05. That is a FACT. In late 2009 it is still not fully operational. Yet again, FACT. It has been AND still is plagued by bugs, technical issues, and dead spots. More FACTS. Nationwide Opensky has been awarded or have had people bid on 25 contracts. Out of those 25, only 12 are fully functional. Three other contracts have been terminated. About another three or four are online but not yet working to contract specs.

The users of this system here in Oakland County are not happy with this system. That is the OPINION of the people who use this system. Some fire departments refuse to let their firefighters use this system on a fireground. That is a FACT.

It has been said that the coverage on the MPSCS system is not good in Oakland County and that is why they went with this system. That is a bunch of smelly political fertilizer. Although it may not be good now, put 35 MPSCS towers around the county like opensky did and I am willing to bet that the MPSCS coverage would be BETTER then opensky. I am also willing to bet it would not take half that many towers, but then again, that is just my OPINION.

In my OPINION, the concept behind this system is good. However the technology has not got all the bugs worked out and the company still needs to do a lot of work on it before putting it in the hands of those who protect us. Unfortunately it appears opensky has hired ex used car salesman to sell their products and the county is eating it up. Maybe they can buy extra radios for the scanner listeners from New York? What do you all think? haha.

Hooligan · #49 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey60

News to me. I have that frequency in my scanner, and other than the occasional patched transmission from the OpenSky side, there's nothing there. I don't even think they still have the VHF radios in the cars anymore, although they may have some preps still around.

Mike

I'll definitely defer to your local observations. My info came from a friend with a scanner in RO who hung out with an ROPD officer friend of his after they got the new radios.

I wonder why though they're bothering to patch to the old VHF channel if they're 100% migrated to the new system?

mikey60 · #50 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hooligan

I'll definitely defer to your local observations. My info came from a friend with a scanner in RO who hung out with an ROPD officer friend of his after they got the new radios.

I wonder why though they're bothering to patch to the old VHF channel if they're 100% migrated to the new system?

No idea. I heard a couple transmissions earlier this evening, but nothing else.

Mike

N_Jay · #51 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idontknow82

I think you fail to see that the government messes up everything they touch. And you remain....

Now that we are completely off-topic, I suggest you look up a few of my posts in the tavern on politics.

kd8ati · #52 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 7:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey60

No idea. I heard a couple transmissions earlier this evening, but nothing else.

Mike

Mikey!!! Hey yeah I heard those transmissions earlier to. It seems they are very spotty. I am still trying to figure out why exactly they do it. A few nights ago it was patched through and it sounded like HP Dispatch was on the conv radio. Weird.

73's

Ray_Air · #53 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 9:13 PM

Police scanners go silent? That's OK, so do Open Sky radios, especially preps. At least that is what I have been told by system users.(ex- numerous prep issues have caused calls to only come over the mobile radio and not the prep, many instances of personnel being out of contact while out of car and unaware of it). I hope to be able to post a complete list of all the current issues with this system. I'm just beginning to compile my initial interview data.

Hopefully ,they get the bugs worked out of this system.God knows for what the county paid for it, it better perform to original specifications per the contract. Considering that O/S was supposed to be fully operational countywide 5-6 years ago and today only a small fraction of PD/FD agencies are using it, it doesn't look to be fully operational anytime soon ,if ever. O/S technology looks impressive on paper. It seems more advanced than P25, but what was on paper hasn't been realized. One would have thought the more advanced AMBE vocoder would have solved some of the problems with IMBE vocoders as are used in P25 radio systems. To be continued........

N_Jay · #54 (**permalink**) 12-22-2009, 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_Air

O/S technology looks impressive on paper.

What about OpenSky is particularly impressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_Air

It seems more advanced than P25,

What seems more advanced than P25?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_Air

but what was on paper hasn't been realized.

What hasn't been realized?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_Air

One would have thought the more advanced AMBE vocoder would have solved some of the problems with IMBE vocoders as are used in P25 radio systems.

What particular problems, would you expect the vocoder to have solved?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_Air

To be continued........

I hope so.

Wyandotte · #55 (**permalink**) 12-23-2009, 3:17 PM

Mr. Moderator:

Time to close this thread. It's gone from "Community Announcement and News" about OC and OpenSky, to a three page musdslinging convention. The announcement has been made, I suggest this thread be closed.

Thank you

zz0468 · #56 (**permalink**) 12-23-2009, 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyandotte

Time to close this thread. It's gone from "Community Announcement and News" about OC and OpenSky, to a three page musdslinging convention...

...which is pretty typical of encryption and Opensky threads here. It would be entirely unnecessary if people could realize that:

a. Scanner listeners don't have an inherent right to listen.
b. Scanner listening isn't the magic panacea to open and honest government.
c. Agencies that opt to encrypt are not likely to want to share their specific reasons with the general public, and that there is no constitutional requirement that they do so, and...
d. Opensky has enough successful implementations out there that when it's bid against other system architecture, apparently someone can make a case that it's a worthwhile and cost effective solution, and it's
"listenibility" by scanners is just not a factor.

brandon · #57 (**permalink**) 12-23-2009, 5:40 PM

Agencies have a right to go encrypted or move to scanner unfriendly formats, just as we have a right to pack up and live somewhere that doesn't use encryption. If our county goes green, I'll be outta here in a heartbeat. I won't let encryption stop me from enjoying the hobby. It's really that simple.

Hooligan · #58 (**permalink**) 12-23-2009, 10:50 PM

I suppose we should all hope that this interoperability FAD continues for a long time, because the next fad that gets LEA all worked up about to get federal funds for might be encryption.

Hudecker · #59 (**permalink**) 12-23-2009, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zz0468

...
d. Opensky has enough successful implementations out there that when it's bid against other system architecture, apparently someone can make a case that it's a worthwhile and cost effective solution, and it's "listenibility" by scanners is just not a factor.

What do you consider "enough" for having successful implementations? As of last count, I could find 18 contracts signed for Voice OpenSky systems, not including New York, yet I only see one Voice system fully operational on time which was Newton CO Georgia.

Just curious.

zz0468 · #60 (**permalink**) 12-24-2009, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudecker

What do you consider "enough" for having successful implementations?

One would do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudecker

As of last count, I could find 18 contracts signed for Voice OpenSky systems, not including New York, yet I only see one Voice system fully operational on time which was Newton CO Georgia.

Just curious.

Ok... Before you all run off half-cocked and half-baked, let me make it clear that I am not an advocate of Open Sky. All my previous statement indicates is, there are enough existing systems out there that some agencies are able to justify going that route.

Ok, there's my disclaimer. Best information I'm able to find in a 5 minute internet search is, Fedex has 19 systems; Orange County Transit Authority; Newton County, GA; Detroit Department of Transportation (?); Oakland County, MI;Cumberland County, PA, State of PA, statewide; Ozaukee County, WI... and a dozen more under construction.

I will not define any of these as "successful" because I have no facts regarding that, pro or con, and I'm not trying to sell anyone on Open Sky. Again, my entire point is merely to state that there are enough systems out there that agencies making tough decisions are apparently (on occasion) finding cause to justify selecting Open Sky.