Chester County,PA moves ahead with new $42M emergency radio upgrade

[MotoSystemsTech]

Chester County moves ahead with new $42M emergency radio upgrade - delcotimes.com

[902]

Exciting news! I have mixed memories of the MultiNet II system they put in. It was a learning experience for sure. I think they will be well-served by Harris. Now, we need some more P25 Phase II capable receivers.

[ocguard]

Any word on paging?

[mattl3320]

The paging system has been updated with new antennas and cable and radios for dispatching. New fire pagers where issued and the paging and west fire and east fire channels where narrowbanded. The system has been up since around the end of april 2012. for fire paging the voice radio for all user pd fd ems ect they are still working on.

[ff-medic]

It calls for $27.4 million in capital and initial maintenance costs and an additional eight-years of maintenance for $14.7 million, for a total of $42.1 million.

Eight years of maintenance = $14.7 Million dollars. And they were cheaper than the other bidders. I don't understand $14.7 million in maintenace costs. Over one million dolars....A YEAR for maintenace. Software upgrades I did not think were that expensive, nor should they have to be done that often. What happen to installing a simple, reliable, uncomplicated, and trouble free backbone system with the radios.

Compare the percentage of maintenace costs, to the initial investment. About 50%. Gee whiz.

The system upgrade is desperately needed, the commissioners were told Tuesday. The current analog system continues to have the “dead spots” in coverage through the county that had marked it since it was installed in the early 1990s.

Yeah. Digital = More repeaters needed, more taxpayer money spent, and more susceptability for radio problems.

The system upgrade is desperately needed, the commissioners were told Tuesday. The current analog system continues to have the “dead spots” in coverage through the county that had marked it since it was installed in the early 1990s. The Harris contact would mandate 97 percent coverage for the county.

So, it was installed in the 90's. Why not have another radio/communication study done...AGAIN, and upgrade from there? Some new repeaters, new radios and dispatch consoles? I still cannot get over the maintenace cost. Have a company install the system, and guarantee it. Maintenace this and maintence that.

The Harris contact would mandate 97 percent coverage for the county.

Well, in my opinion, I would have went with Harris over Motorola any day. Motorola does make some good products, but I belive they are significantly overrated. Like a dive instructor told me one time..."It's all about how you market your product".

And I thought Harris could do DES ( Encryption ?? ) without P25? Did they not advertise that at one time? And what is the hurah over phase 2?

I am happy they are getting a new radio system....But holy batman.....Seems to me, financially, it could have been done a little better. Even with the mobile sites. IF the mobile sites were really justified. If you have a reliable and effective backbone system, why mobile sites?

FF-Medic !!!

[902]

I can only speak from experience with another system, but "maintenance" may include a technology refresh as well as technician time. There are many different variables factored in. One would have to look at an itemized breakdown to see exactly what is and what isn't in there. I do know that things have a very short shelf-life and in 3 years of 9-1-1 dispatcher equipment, there was already one replacement - not necessarily because things didn't work, but because the replacements were no longer produced and were not directly compatible with upgrades.

As far as encryption without P25, why? Sure, on the old GE systems you had Aegis, but essentially you become married to the equipment. If you go P25 and adhere to the standard, you can go out for competitive bid to buy equipment that's not necessarily the manufacturer's. I was hoping the other subsystem interfaces could allow for buying different manufacturers' base stations at each site, but that won't happen. So, P25's not so bad in those terms.

As for Phase II, you more or less get a 2:1 for each base station after the control channel is taken out. So you have a 15 frequency site, one is held back for control, then there are 28 talkpaths. It's that capability to multiplex and get a virtually bigger system with physically and fiscally less equipment.

[ff-medic]

Originally Posted by 902

I can only speak from experience with another system, but "maintenance" may include a technology refresh as well as technician time.

That is still expensive in my belief. Over one million a year in maintenace. If Harris installs the system correctly, I don't believe it should need that much maintenace. Especially "maintenance upgrades" every year. Over one milion dollars worth.

Originally Posted by 902

There are many different variables factored in. One would have to look at an itemized breakdown to see exactly what is and what isn't in there.

I would like to see the list myself.

Originally Posted by 902

I do know that things have a very short shelf-life and in 3 years of 9-1-1 dispatcher equipment, there was already one replacement - not necessarily because things didn't work, but because the replacements were no longer produced and were not directly compatible with upgrades.

I am thinking, right off the top of my head, dispatch centers and equipment should last at least ten years...maybe even fifteen. As much money that goes into radio comms, a public safety agency should "get their moneys worth". The initial investment of upgrades, new backbone system, mobiles and portables...I understand is expensive. I do understand that. But when a comms company installs a radio system, it should be installed to last. The figure paid for the system should include techs coming out and making any necessary repairs , emergency repairs ( electrical problems, degraded equipment, programming problems, weather damages, and ect )

Originally Posted by 902

As far as encryption without P25, why? .

As to not have the associated problems with digital, that at times plague public safety agencys. Analog, in my opinion, is more reliable and less susceptable to problems. Digital ---> and converting simple language to a computer language then back to simple language...seems to be a bad deal for public safety agencys. Especially when lives may be on the line. There is pages upon pages and news articles about the problem with digital communications in public safety...ESPECIALLY the fire service. Agencys start with digital, then go back to analog. Law Enforcement, and Fire Departments thought P25 was the perfect solution.... I do not believe it is. Internet, public safety magazine, and other research would prove this.

Originally Posted by 902

If you go P25 and adhere to the standard, you can go out for competitive bid to buy equipment that's not necessarily the manufacturer's..

Yes. But if you keep the same communications company, you get to know everyone and they know you. Maybe..just maybe, if you keep them as the sole radio corp, they will save you money down the road, and hand down some other fringe benefits along the way...benefits that the entire agency can enjoy. Harris is proven. They have become a competitive company on the LMR market. Surpassing Motorola, and finally knocking them off of their high horse. And there is more downsides to P25 than analog. One extremely downside....is loss of communications. Maybe a loss of communciations when you need it most, such as in a life saving emergency.

Originally Posted by 902

I was hoping the other subsystem interfaces could allow for buying different manufacturers' base stations at each site, but that won't happen. So, P25's not so bad in those terms.

Why not keep it simple and stay with one single manufacturer? Compatibility, reliabilty, and ease of use. One system, one company,one radio brand. keep it standardized.

Originally Posted by 902

It's that capability to multiplex and get a virtually bigger system with physically and fiscally less equipment.

And take a bigger chance in overtaxing / overworking your radio system. Conventional analog, with AES...or DES even, seems to me to be the way to go. The most important element in radio communications seems to be the human element. Using people for good and accurate radio communications, instead of over doing it with radio equipment. The larger the size, the more chances of radio failure, and or equipment problems.

Keep it simple. Have enough antennas/repeater sites for the area covered. Standardize your radio equipment and system. Have a back up communications plan should bad weather, electrical outage occur. Insure the radio techs can fix problems in a short amount of time. Do a good communications research and study, before purchase of a radio system. Get input from a small grou ( experienced and inexperienced people in radios ) on the needs of the agency - what the agency needs, and how to improve and simplify things. Have the agency installing the radio system, the people you purchase everything from put everything in writing. Non-Disclosure agreements should be signed for the encryption stuff.


FF-Medic !!!!

[04Z1V6]

It has also become acceptable practice to go with the low bid and watch that company cream you with outrageous prices for change orders for the smallest of deviation in the contract, this extends further when a contractor can find cause for "unforeseen conditions". That part of the contract must be watched with great diligence because once that cat is out of the bag its hard to put it back in without getting injured.

[902]

Originally Posted by ff-medic

That is still expensive in my belief. Over one million a year in maintenace. If Harris installs the system correctly, I don't believe it should need that much maintenace. Especially "maintenance upgrades" every year. Over one milion dollars worth.

Unfortunately that's become a cost of doing business. We'll have to wait for the itemization. Maybe it can be FOI'd.

I am thinking, right off the top of my head, dispatch centers and equipment should last at least ten years...maybe even fifteen. As much money that goes into radio comms, a public safety agency should "get their moneys worth". The initial investment of upgrades, new backbone system, mobiles and portables...I understand is expensive. I do understand that. But when a comms company installs a radio system, it should be installed to last. The figure paid for the system should include techs coming out and making any necessary repairs , emergency repairs ( electrical problems, degraded equipment, programming problems, weather damages, and ect )

I agree, but the reality is that manufacturers weren't making any money by doing that. I remember Chester County was just being optimized 15 years ago; an analog system with tons of bugs. Some of those bugs, along with a company whose executive leadership ran it into the ground, seemed like they were insurmountable. So, they did realize most of that 15 years from their system. There are other agencies who invested in T-Band, only to have it "retasked" by a vengeful Congress demanding quid pro quo for the D-Block. Those agencies will get no more than 8 years (now) of usable life until the forklift. The magic plan is to migrate them to 700 narrowband now, which is likely to be a digital implementation.

Now, wait until you start seeing LTE subscriber equipment. I've been told by the talking heads in industry that the life expectancy is 18 months (!!!). Yes, subscriber equipment should be less expensive, but with an 18 month life cycle, the end-cost after the 15 years may be substantially more.

As to not have the associated problems with digital, that at times plague public safety agencys. Analog, in my opinion, is more reliable and less susceptable to problems. Digital ---> and converting simple language to a computer language then back to simple language...seems to be a bad deal for public safety agencys. Especially when lives may be on the line. There is pages upon pages and news articles about the problem with digital communications in public safety...ESPECIALLY the fire service. Agencys start with digital, then go back to analog. Law Enforcement, and Fire Departments thought P25 was the perfect solution.... I do not believe it is. Internet, public safety magazine, and other research would prove this.

You've left out that a number of manufacturers have implemented new vocoders following their collaboration with NIST and the user community. Something they should have done from the beginning. The Internet is full of sea monster stories that have no expiration dates. Look hard enough and you will find the stories of poorly implemented trunked systems in the 80s and poorly implemented first-generation P25 systems in the late 90s. Those have never been revised or redacted. The remediation has never been communicated. Magazine articles written to be entertaining while informing. Some are sales pieces written by vendors that cry "look at me!" As for research, there are volumes of genuine research, mostly from NIST. One of their lead investigators died in a crash not too long ago. Those are the ones you might want to go looking for. Plug NIST and P25 into the search engine of your choice.

Yes. But if you keep the same communications company, you get to know everyone and they know you. Maybe..just maybe, if you keep them as the sole radio corp, they will save you money down the road, and hand down some other fringe benefits along the way...benefits that the entire agency can enjoy. Harris is proven. They have become a competitive company on the LMR market. Surpassing Motorola, and finally knocking them off of their high horse. And there is more downsides to P25 than analog. One extremely downside....is loss of communications. Maybe a loss of communciations when you need it most, such as in a life saving emergency.

I would partially agree with you on digital if your statement was made about the IMBE vocoder. Not every manufacturer is going to use the revised vocoder in their products, at least their lower-tier products, so due diligence is needed. There are some people who (IMO) seemed to be bent on global domination and probably made investments in white-boarding every area with a strategy to make them theirs. That might not be working so well right now.

But P25 was intended to be a common platform that could facilitate competitive procurement. The thought was that the competition would be the factor that drove prices down. In reality, not so much. Seems someone has been flooding the marketplace with divergent digital systems... It's 20 years ago all over again (that's why P25 began).

Why not keep it simple and stay with one single manufacturer? Compatibility, reliabilty, and ease of use. One system, one company,one radio brand. keep it standardized.

Because it creates a monopoly in the area. A one manufacturer system might exclude the other local businesses who may have had a vital part in a pre-regionalized radio system.

And take a bigger chance in overtaxing / overworking your radio system. Conventional analog, with AES...or DES even, seems to me to be the way to go. The most important element in radio communications seems to be the human element. Using people for good and accurate radio communications, instead of over doing it with radio equipment. The larger the size, the more chances of radio failure, and or equipment problems.

I agree that technology is never the solution to a human issue. I also agree with your 'bigger they are, the harder they fall' statement. I've been preaching that, too. I disagree with analog. There is a role for it, but that role is limited. That said, digital does need to be of sufficient throughput to have good characteristics. iDEN and digital cellular have/had terrible audio quality, in my opinion.

Keep it simple. Have enough antennas/repeater sites for the area covered. Standardize your radio equipment and system. Have a back up communications plan should bad weather, electrical outage occur. Insure the radio techs can fix problems in a short amount of time. Do a good communications research and study, before purchase of a radio system. Get input from a small grou ( experienced and inexperienced people in radios ) on the needs of the agency - what the agency needs, and how to improve and simplify things. Have the agency installing the radio system, the people you purchase everything from put everything in writing. Non-Disclosure agreements should be signed for the encryption stuff.

In this context, encryption is an on/off switch or strapped mode (that's a better way of doing it) and someone who has a key variable loader. It's not like having a CRM-114 discriminator and a safe mounted in a B52. Agreed on everything else. Completely.

[902]

Originally Posted by 04Z1V6

It has also become acceptable practice to go with the low bid and watch that company cream you with outrageous prices for change orders for the smallest of deviation in the contract, this extends further when a contractor can find cause for "unforeseen conditions". That part of the contract must be watched with great diligence because once that cat is out of the bag its hard to put it back in without getting injured.

LOL. We know the same people.

I've tried (in my past lives) to leverage Gaussian distribution and throw out the highest and lowest bids. There's something wrong with the highest bid if it's disproportionately high. They probably didn't read the spec, or didn't want the project. There's something wrong with the lowest bid if it's disproportionately low. Undoubtedly, they left things out, or will try to ransom the entity fixing omissions on a time and materials basis. Then, for everything in the middle, go line by line for compliance. Too many exceptions will be someone's headache in the future. Last thing I want is for that to be MY headache, so those go. That all presumes the persons authoring the bid specs knew what they were doing in the first place and that whomever is the project manager is not a wheeler/dealer personality type (these folks know better, but they bargain away things for short-term gain or personal benefit that turn into someone else's headache later in the process), but rather one who holds the bidder to task In other words, these things tend to be preventable failures of due diligence.

[ff-medic]

Originally Posted by 902

Because it creates a monopoly in the area. A one manufacturer system might exclude the other local businesses who may have had a vital part in a pre-regionalized radio system.

Well. Your definition of monopoly, and my definition of monopoly is not the same.

Example - Radio Corp "A" ...... provides a service to a public safety agency. They were lower than all the other bidders, OR were not the lowest, but competitive...and fell the most within the specs set by the public safety agency. Radio Corp "A" sets up a radio system ( New - Upgraded - Improved upon ) , and the system became a reliable radio system, with reduncancy and fail safe criteria. The radio system was standard and they guaranted their work. THEN, I do not see a monopoly, just because other businesses were excluded. Next upgrade, or if another business approaches and says "Hey. I think we can meet your bid criteria." , then hear them out. If they can't, then scoot them to the door.

A basic, standard, and uniform radio system is important. It helps communication wise, financial wise, and personnel wise. Everyone is quote - " On the same sheet of music."

One radio channel 2 ( brand a) which is a tac freq, might be a dispatch freq on channel 2, with another brand of radio. Example----> like me. I can take my radio and choose a channel most times without looking. I pick up another radio, I have to take the radio of of my belt and look a the channel selection to change channels, to see whom i am talking to. The two handhelds do not have the frequencys programmed the same. Meaning ( example ) - channel three on one radio, is channel five on another. I am not in charge, and I have no say so - so I can't fix the problem.

Function keys, channel selection, freq choices, power levels, and others...need to be standard with each and every radio - both portable radios and mobiles. Ease of use, and knowledge of use by everyone, instead of having to learn each and every different radio system.

Mobile radios, portable radios, repeaters, antennas.....ALL need to be standard. With about twenty years in Public Safety, and my military experience ( using Motorola, and Bendix King Portables ) having one radio brand is much better than having multiple brands of radios within an agency. Use of, and especially...Especially repair.... Is much more simplified. Why would a radio tech, including radio techs in house, have to have two or more sets of programing cables, lap tops, and multiple brands of radio essentials ( batterys - antennas...ect ) when one brand would be much more simplified, and in some cases...more cost effective?

FF-Medic !!!

[902]

I ran a countywide communications system in a county a little smaller than Chester Co. I can tell you that even with standardization, you will encounter unanticipated issues that drive you to consider other options. For example - I deployed several hundred subscriber units that included XTS-3000 portables and Astro Spectras. After several years of use, the XTS-3000 was discontinued and the "highly recommended" replacement was the XTS-5000. However, my officers had no use for the feature set in the XTS-5000, the system was VHF conventional. The Astro Spectras were adequate for our needs and actually had to be simplified quite a bit. After a while, those radios were also discontinued. The XTL-5000 was "suggested." Again, the feature set used in the deployment did not merit a "full blown" XTL-5000. I had CPS and RSS for everything and did my own programming in-house (and, by doing so, implemented a number of features that WERE useful). So, the decision was whether or not to use top-of-the-line equipment at the time, for sixteen channels with no need for trunking features, but ones that did include P25. With one exception. The system was built out in a proprietary derivative of P25 - "Wide Pulse Astro." This was P25 that fit within a 20 kHz wide channel, not within a 12.5 kHz wide channel as it was intended. The manufacturer took liberties to use the added width to reduce the number of simulcast sites while still using C4FM instead of using CQPSK. Some of us viewed this as a bait and switch, as it was no longer the "Queen's" P25.

So, to find a 16 channel portable radio that conformed within the budget, I evaluated a number of other vendors, only one which could deliberately accommodate the wide C4FM. This is my point. We ultimately ended up making adjustments and used XTL-2500 radios (lower cost and adequate feature set), and XTS-2500 portables (also lower cost and adequate feature set for VHF conventional), and then ended up with different CPS, different cables, different codeplug builds (let me tell you, manually rekeying pages of codeplug data into incompatible software really, really sucks - especially when you have the same type of radio, with incompatible firmware, like a car radio and a motorcycle radio), and also marginally compatible accessories (speaker mics, only). Even the control heads could not be kept the same, meaning officers had to be retrained in how to use the new radio, right down to the emergency button being physically in a different place (and hope they retained the information under duress).

Even if we were to make the "recommended" purchases, we would STILL have to reconfigure a number of operational and training materials that have no continuity from old to new.

Standardization is an illusion and you're only playing that same song with everyone else as long as your equipment and firmware is from the same build and no one does anything jack***, like introducing new CPS that blocks out older software, or (the newest shenanigan) using an ASIC dongle as a hardware key for trunking. It's toxic. Once you use it, you have to use it for EVERYTHING that involves a parameter change.

In a truly standards-based system, I should be able to place my infrastructure into operation, then be able to select the most appropriate equipment for the purpose. It was possible in FM and the spirit of standardization means it should be possible in standards-based digital. Selecting Brand A mobiles and portables for first-line response, but allowing the option for Brand B or C for animal control or facilities maintenance should also be my prerogative as the system manager. This also keeps the other shops in business. Go to a community that has a Brand C trunked system and there is likely a Brand C shop in the vicinity, but it is not worth the investment for Brands A or B to even set up. It's also impractical to believe they'll make a long term commitment to posture for the next build of the system.

This competitiveness I was referring to is healthy and keeps more of our people employed.