MPSCS at full capacity

[ffexpCP]

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mp...r_281355_7.pdf

[Wyandotte]

Originally Posted by ffexpCP

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mp...r_281355_7.pdf

Having read the article, here's the thought that crossed my mind. And everyone is welcome to tell me what's wrong with my thinking:

When Downriver goes up north, like when Allen Park detectives went to the U.P. to some prison up there, they were heard by folks through the state talking back and forth on the MPSCS. So does Downriver (and Western Wayne and Eastern Wayne, etc.) also have MPSCS ID's? Downriver, Western and Eastern Wayne are seperate systems, if I'm not mistaken. If that is true, and if the Downriver cars in the UP were patched through without needing MPSCS ID's, then could MPSCS address this issue by creating additional systems that are separate like Downriver is, but "permanently" patched to the state system? Maybe divide the state into two or three different systems that can each have 64,000 system/user ID's. And then link them together.

Hopefully everyone understands what I'm asking here.

[rdale]

Yes I understand, but no you can't do that.

[datainmotion]

Good planning.
Maybe they could ask for a bailout.

[MPSCS]

My guess would be that it's a software (database) issue, and not a limitation of the radio system itself. In any event, they put everyone and their brother on MPSCS, schools, water department, hospitals, etc. Added to that, some agencies have more TG's than seems necessary.

[EC-7]

Wasnt it Motorola's wet dream to get everyone and their brother onto this system, and now they realize that it came true, but aren't prepared for it.

Even if the system and radios are capable of the newer Astro 7.0 software, you know Moto is gonna rape the state with a $10,000 software upgrade per tower, $5,000 per dispatch console and $1,000 per mobile/portable radio, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.

They did give out too many talk groups for some counties and agencies, but giving some groups radios, such as schools, is just a waste of $ and resources.

[MOTST]

Gosh, coming down on Mot pretty hard aren't we? Who would we listen to if not the MPSCS system

[N_Jay]

I would guess that the System Mangers have known the limitations since early in the design review prior to implementation.

Sounds like it is time to move to 7.x

[KC8NIY]

Originally Posted by EC-7

They did give out too many talk groups for some counties and agencies, but giving some groups radios, such as schools, is just a waste of $ and resources.

I agree completely that some agencies have WAY more talkgroups than they actually need and/or use, which was simply poor planning. Hey, if it is presented to an agency that they can do it, of course they will! Now if they have to actually give some solid reasoning to a committee who plans appropriate usage, I think you'd see those unnecessary talkgroups decrease dramatically.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with your assessment that agencies such as schools having radios on MPSCS is a waste of money and resources. While I don't think every local unit of government or non-governental organization should have talkgroups assigned to them, I think it is GREAT planning for a couple key facilities and/or individuals in these organizations to have radios assigned to them with capabilities on a select few talkgroups. Local event channels, or channels designated for emergency information dissemination can be an extremely useful tool when used appropriately, and the users have been trained in appropriate radio protocols.

[seamusg]

Originally Posted by KC8NIY

I agree completely that some agencies have WAY more talkgroups than they actually need and/or use, which was simply poor planning. Hey, if it is presented to an agency that they can do it, of course they will! Now if they have to actually give some solid reasoning to a committee who plans appropriate usage, I think you'd see those unnecessary talkgroups decrease dramatically.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with your assessment that agencies such as schools having radios on MPSCS is a waste of money and resources. While I don't think every local unit of government or non-governental organization should have talkgroups assigned to them, I think it is GREAT planning for a couple key facilities and/or individuals in these organizations to have radios assigned to them with capabilities on a select few talkgroups. Local event channels, or channels designated for emergency information dissemination can be an extremely useful tool when used appropriately, and the users have been trained in appropriate radio protocols.

The article didnot say they are running out of TGID's, but are running out of RID's (too many radios on the system) 64k max RID's

[scannerfreak]

SAFE-T is approaching this problem quickly as well from what I hear..

[KC8NIY]

Originally Posted by seamusg

The article didnot say they are running out of TGID's, but are running out of RID's (too many radios on the system) 64k max RID's

I understand. The first part of my commentary regarding talkgroups was directed at the post I quoted. The second paragraph is directly in reference to RID's.

[rcvmo]

Who would we listen to if not the MPSCS system?

Gosh darn, there are many analog VHF and UHF dept.s still out there. Even the digital crossband patches as well.
I know my dept. was given the option to join MPSCS, but we opted to stay low and run our own analog re-banded system. We may still get a couple P25 mobils and HT;'s for interop.

rcvmo

[MOTST]

You are right of course, but what fun would listening to a single freq be Not much to discuss with that type of system. Actually, I expected more feedback on my previous comment.

[detroit780]

I believe all users on the MPSCS are paying a fee to the state to use the system and that fee covers upgrades to the system. So charging per tower, per user per radio won't happen.

All frequencies in the system are controlled by MPSCS. So charging a local community to upgrade software on a set of tower frequencies that adjoining communities use when in the vicinity of of the tower would be a difficult task.

I think they are prepared for it, otherwise they would not have sent letters out to all system users. It looks like version 7 is at least an answer till the system doubles once again.

Les

Originally Posted by EC-7

Wasnt it Motorola's wet dream to get everyone and their brother onto this system, and now they realize that it came true, but aren't prepared for it.

Even if the system and radios are capable of the newer Astro 7.0 software, you know Moto is gonna rape the state with a $10,000 software upgrade per tower, $5,000 per dispatch console and $1,000 per mobile/portable radio, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.

They did give out too many talk groups for some counties and agencies, but giving some groups radios, such as schools, is just a waste of $ and resources.