Jackson Police

i5adam8 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-25-2008, 03:55 PM

I have heard from someone that Jackson City Police Officers have just recently switched to using MA COM P5400 portable radios.Does anyone else know anything about this?

bigbluemsp · #2 (**permalink**) 04-25-2008, 09:16 PM

I hope the MPSCS finally approved M/A Com radio's on the system or they will have usless hardware.

Should have stuck with Motorola becuase they work best on the M platforms.

SEMTTP · #3 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 12:12 PM

I went throught Jackson City Council minutes all the way back to January, and there is no approval to purchase new radios. Where did you get this information from and can you provide a link?

SEMTTP · #4 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluemsp

I hope the MPSCS finally approved M/A Com radio's on the system or they will have usless hardware.

Should have stuck with Motorola becuase they work best on the M platforms.

As of right now, only Motorola and EFJohnson radios are approved to be on the MPSCS. I find it very hard to believe that they would purchase these radios just for "conventional use"

Again thought, there was no approvals for any type of purchase, whether it be by grant money or the money the city forks out......

i5adam8 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEMTTP

I went throught Jackson City Council minutes all the way back to January, and there is no approval to purchase new radios. Where did you get this information from and can you provide a link?

No link or anything,just what I was told by someone who works on the fire dept.He said the ones that were being used by city officers were old and outdated Ericcson models from the early to mid nineties,and that they were phasing them out.Apparently they needed a portable that could operate in both UHF and VHF mode so they could communicate with county agencies.

N8DRC · #6 (**permalink**) 04-26-2008, 09:15 PM

I have noticed that the past few weeks that their radios have been sounding alot better than they used to...

rdale · #7 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluemsp

I hope the MPSCS finally approved M/A Com radio's on the system or they will have usless hardware.

Last I had heard, they were going to implement an EDACS system in the county similar to Ingham's... You're saying they are joining MPSCS?

SEMTTP · #8 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluemsp

I hope the MPSCS finally approved M/A Com radio's on the system or they will have usless hardware.

Should have stuck with Motorola becuase they work best on the M platforms.

Rob,

I think what he is saying is he hopes that the MPSCS has approved the usage of the M/A Com type radios. As of right now those radios cannot be used on the MPSCS. Only the Motorola and EF Johnson line of radios are approved to use the MPSCS.

It kinda makes sense for them to go to a EDACS system, but in light of the entire state going to the MPSCS, one could only hope there is someone over there with a brain that will just talk them into starting maybe another sub system of the MPSCS.

We will just have to wait and see..

bigbluemsp · #9 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 10:45 PM

Thanks E thats what I was talking about.

So far the only radios permitted and approved for the MPSCS are:

Motorola
Kenwood
EF Johnson

Now with that said Motorola's work better becuase the system is a Motorola platform so they have less issues.

There will come a time when the other places in the state the decide to go on their own way will need something from someone and they can't reach them they have themself to blame for making themselfs their own little island.

rdale · #10 (**permalink**) 04-27-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEMTTP

I think what he is saying is he hopes that the MPSCS has approved the usage of the M/A Com type radios. As of right now those radios cannot be used on the MPSCS.

But if Jackson is developing an EDACS system - that won't matter. I guess that's why I was confused on his comment. My info is old though, and was questionable when I got it, so don't hold me to it.

Quote:

one could only hope there is someone over there with a brain that will just talk them into starting maybe another sub system of the MPSCS.

Ehh, I don't think that's a big deal. MPSCS is not a cheap system for agencies to jump into. If you're going to spend mega-dollars on a system, there are advantages to it being your own. Not saying that there aren't problems too - but when you have troubles there is only one source to blame (your vendor) and you can have it fixed. When Lansing Fire had dead zone issues with MPSCS, the $$$ paid to the state stayed the same but they didn't get any improvements in coverage for the YEARS it was in service.

When they had problems with the EDACS, it took some 6 months or so to get everything ironed out -- but because of their insistance it was fixed.

Mutual aid works seamlessly with the system -- they patch all the time into Eaton Co conventional, Clinton Co 800MHz EDACS, and MPSCS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluemsp

There will come a time when the other places in the state the decide to go on their own way will need something from someone and they can't reach them they have themself to blame for making themselfs their own little island.

That's what I don't understand... Any Ingham Co unit can be patched to a MPSCS event talkgroup. MSP always works on Ingham Sheriff talkgroup. The users have no idea they are on completely different frequencies, talkgroups, and one side analog with the other digital.

bigbluemsp · #11 (**permalink**) 04-28-2008, 01:21 PM

Patching weakens the signals being sent out and received along with making them distorted.

Patching won't be around on the system very long because I don't see the MPSCS allowing it much longer.

rdale · #12 (**permalink**) 04-28-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluemsp

Patching weakens the signals being sent out and received along with making them distorted.

I'm not sure who told you that. There's no such thing as "distorted" sound from MPSCS. It's a digital system, so you don't hear bad audio. I'd invite you to drive through Lansing someday and listen to the patches. You wouldn't know the difference from MPSCS and Ingham Co 400.

Quote:

Patching won't be around on the system very long because I don't see the MPSCS allowing it much longer.

What are you talking about? There are BOATLOADS of patches to MPSCS. It would be INCREDIBLY stupid for MPSCS to cut off mutual aid patches let alone the standard patches to sheriffs (Eaton patches MSP users in directly, and Clinton Co too.)

Where did you get this info? It'd make a good news story if you have any backing to your claim, as clearly this would be harmful to protecting our state and for no good reason other than MSP whining.

i5adam8 · #13 (**permalink**) 04-28-2008, 03:23 PM

At Stockbridge Ambulance we use a patch to talk to Livingston Central dispatch on M.P.S.C.S. whenever we run calls in to Unadilla Twp.It seems to sound just fine.

bigbluemsp · #14 (**permalink**) 04-28-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdale

I'm not sure who told you that. There's no such thing as "distorted" sound from MPSCS. It's a digital system, so you don't hear bad audio. I'd invite you to drive through Lansing someday and listen to the patches. You wouldn't know the difference from MPSCS and Ingham Co 400.

What are you talking about? There are BOATLOADS of patches to MPSCS. It would be INCREDIBLY stupid for MPSCS to cut off mutual aid patches let alone the standard patches to sheriffs (Eaton patches MSP users in directly, and Clinton Co too.)

Where did you get this info? It'd make a good news story if you have any backing to your claim, as clearly this would be harmful to protecting our state and for no good reason other than MSP whining.

Info came from a contact at the MPSCS office in Lansing on the patch and quality.

Fiveo · #15 (**permalink**) 04-28-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdale

Where did you get this info? It'd make a good news story if you have any backing to your claim, as clearly this would be harmful to protecting our state and for no good reason other than MSP whining.

Uh, not too sure what "MSP whining" has to do with anything...MSP has not been running the MPSCS for several years now, DIT is in charge of it and has control of the entire system.

http://www.michigan.gov/mpscs

rdale · #16 (**permalink**) 04-28-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluemsp

Info came from a contact at the MPSCS office in Lansing on the patch and quality.

That makes sense then - MPSCS office people STILL get upset that we dare use a scanner to listen. They still consider me a security risk because I listed LFD talkgroups back when they thought no scanner would ever work on MPSCS. They still are upset that Lansing left the system, blaming the dropouts in the northwest part of the city and basements of downtown on "firefighters not knowing how to use their radio."

My point it - patches correctly done have no difference in audio quality. I can't imagine that MPSCS would turn off mutual aid. It would be a public relations (and operational) disaster.

I welcome you to stop by my office when in Lansing, we'll put a 500 next to a 396 and I'll monitor one of the talkgroups and/or conventional channels that is patched to MPSCS, and I guarantee you won't know whether it came from EDACS or MPSCS.