PA State Police Struggle with OpenSky Issues

[JRayfield]

I guess I could have used "DMR" and that would have been technically just as correct.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Originally Posted by Chauffeur6

I saw your username as the last poster and thought for sure I was going to find an advertisement or sales pitch for MOTOTRBO after opening the thread. You did manage to drop the name once, but in a rather inconspicuous way as compared with the rest of your posts.

[902]

Originally Posted by JRayfield

There's very little business communications left using the 800 mhz bands. Most of those frequencies were sold to Nextel.

There are also a lot of "Nextel millionaires" out there who benefitted greatly from the sale of their small SMRs in key markets. The original Nextel (the Morgan O'Brien version) was the picture in the dictionary when you looked up "business plan." Those sales: 1) eliminated most of the competition on 800; 2) effectively obsoleted an entire [still viable] technology in SMR implementations; and 3) facilitated the creation of a two-headed hydra - an "ESMR" on the face looking at the FCC and a cellular telephone company on the face looking at consumers ("Is you is, or is you ain't?" apologies to B.B. King). A lot of those people are a part of the LightSquared dream team today. LightSquared wants to convert spectrum directly adjacent to the GPS downlink frequency to an LTE cellular-like network potentially spoofing everything GPS reliant (not just nav, but synchronization, precision, and timing, too).

[902]

Originally Posted by JRayfield

Your comment, "The biggest advantage of digital communication is to allow multiple conversations to be squeezed into the space that one analog signal occupied, effectively giving the user two or more channels where they only had one.", unfortunately is not true of P25 Phase 1.

P25 Phase 1 is 12.5 khz (narrowband), no different than narrowband analog FM. So agencies switching to P25 Phase 1 aren't getting any more, in terms of frequency spectrum, than what they would have with narrowband analog FM. On the other hand, P25 Phase 2 will be dual time slot TDMA, and so will give two talk paths per 12.5 khz channel (just like MOTOTRBO), and will thus be 'spectrally efficient' as compared to P25 Phase 1.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

You're right, John, but there is an advantage to P25 phase 1 over analog - TSB-88 calculations show that the adjacent frequency can be reused closer to an existing system. That agrees with some early implementation experiments in Phoenix indicating a phase 1 channel could be 12.5 kHz away from another not very far away. This is a passive efficiency. Realizing that closer packing on VHF is still a problem because of the silly 7.5 kHz channelspacing the Commission decided on (the act of "narrowbanding" should have indicated a buildout checkbox in ULS for when a system was really running narrowband - AND it should have channelized around 3.125 kHz increments). It also doesn't help that your output may be someone's input frequency or simplex system, thanks to VHF's legacy of random chaos. The other advantage is error correction and somewhat better weak signal performance when there is no co-channel interference. But it has been slow to take root (maybe way too long, beyond it's technical advantages, and it's kept going by a self-perpetuating "flywheel effect" - but I could be wrong), the prices have been (in my opinion) artificially inflated, and the "standard" has been allowed to be adulterated by manufacturer-proprietary "flavors" of the standard with incompatible enhancements (like $8/radio encryption that marries one to a sole-source, thwarting open, competitive procurement). In defense of DMR, you have competitive products that can be implemented with CAI... at least right now.

DMR "looks like" the other TDMA formats, OpenSky being one. So, that was the root of my original question - if DMR does work (and I think it works well, from what I've seen), it defies reason why OpenSky would not. I think the answer lies in an under-spec'ed system rather than a performance deficiency in the OpenSky protocol or some weird wavelength versus environment issue. It was built around mobile coverage (and it seems to be doing that... most of the time) and user expectations are that they need to use portables on it (and it's not doing that).

You know, this reminds me of many of the public safety trunked radio systems implemented in the mid-80s, where there were notorious problems centered more on inadequate coverage (mostly because a single-site system was covering much more than it could/should to provide the expected reliability) rather than the trunking concept or the use of 800 MHz itself. The end result was still the same: to the end user it doesn't work.

[FedFyrGuy]

Too much static: Statewide radio network proves a bust

Pull the plug on the Pennsylvania Statewide Radio Network.

That is the option lawmakers and the governor should consider as the system, more than 10 years past its original completion date, is still not finished and getting failing marks from some agencies that use it.

Too much static: Statewide radio network proves a bust | PennLive.com

[JRayfield]

Very interesting information on P25 that I was not aware of. What's that old saying..."You learn something new every day..".

And comparing what's happening now, to what went on in the 80's (and into the 90's too) is excellent. For example, I heard of so many Smartnet/Smartzone systems that just didn't work right. According to all of that information, you'd think that Smartnet/Smartzone was a complete technical 'flop'. But, if you knew the 'rest of the story', you'd find that the systems that weren't working were designed for mobile coverage (which was working) and the users decided that they wanted portable coverage (which was poor). But, as you say, to the end user, the systems just didn't work.

Of course, with any of these systems, including some MOTOTRBO systems, there's more than just the CAI involved. So, with OpenSky, there could be problems in the very complex control system. Or even problems in firmware in the radios. All manufacturers have 'bugs' show up in their software/firmware. That's not unusual and it's not going to change, as these systems get more and more complex. Back in the late 80's or early 90's, a company called Americom came out with a wide-area networked radio system based on the LTR trunking format (it was kind of an 'enhanced' LTR system). It was full of 'bugs'. Eventually, EF Johnson bought Americom so that they could fix the system and make it work correctly. They finally gave up. The software was many layers 'deep', with many many 'bugs' in all of the layers.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Originally Posted by 902

You're right, John, but there is an advantage to P25 phase 1 over analog - TSB-88 calculations show that the adjacent frequency can be reused closer to an existing system. That agrees with some early implementation experiments in Phoenix indicating a phase 1 channel could be 12.5 kHz away from another not very far away. This is a passive efficiency. Realizing that closer packing on VHF is still a problem because of the silly 7.5 kHz channelspacing the Commission decided on (the act of "narrowbanding" should have indicated a buildout checkbox in ULS for when a system was really running narrowband - AND it should have channelized around 3.125 kHz increments). It also doesn't help that your output may be someone's input frequency or simplex system, thanks to VHF's legacy of random chaos. The other advantage is error correction and somewhat better weak signal performance when there is no co-channel interference. But it has been slow to take root (maybe way too long, beyond it's technical advantages, and it's kept going by a self-perpetuating "flywheel effect" - but I could be wrong), the prices have been (in my opinion) artificially inflated, and the "standard" has been allowed to be adulterated by manufacturer-proprietary "flavors" of the standard with incompatible enhancements (like $8/radio encryption that marries one to a sole-source, thwarting open, competitive procurement). In defense of DMR, you have competitive products that can be implemented with CAI... at least right now.

DMR "looks like" the other TDMA formats, OpenSky being one. So, that was the root of my original question - if DMR does work (and I think it works well, from what I've seen), it defies reason why OpenSky would not. I think the answer lies in an under-spec'ed system rather than a performance deficiency in the OpenSky protocol or some weird wavelength versus environment issue. It was built around mobile coverage (and it seems to be doing that... most of the time) and user expectations are that they need to use portables on it (and it's not doing that).

You know, this reminds me of many of the public safety trunked radio systems implemented in the mid-80s, where there were notorious problems centered more on inadequate coverage (mostly because a single-site system was covering much more than it could/should to provide the expected reliability) rather than the trunking concept or the use of 800 MHz itself. The end result was still the same: to the end user it doesn't work.

[vinzep491]

Originally Posted by FedFyrGuy

Too much static: Statewide radio network proves a bust

Pull the plug on the Pennsylvania Statewide Radio Network.

That is the option lawmakers and the governor should consider as the system, more than 10 years past its original completion date, is still not finished and getting failing marks from some agencies that use it.

Too much static: Statewide radio network proves a bust | PennLive.com

Dangit, you beat me to it. I just came across this article on the Pennlive website. Some fun facts that caught my attention:

--"The price tag was $179 million when the system was proposed in 1996, but that figure could now be as much as $500 million"
--So you're telling me we spend FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLARS on a failed project and we're still duping money into it.....?!?!?

--"even with 931 towers and microcell sites, they are still finding spots where there is no coverage"
-->931? NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE!?!? And it wont work! Compare this to other state's systems with a third as many sites, with similar terrain and bandplan, and full operational abilities....

--"Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, might have the best idea, suggesting the state consider selling the radio system or privatizing all or part of it."
-->I, too, believe this is an amazing idea if it could be pulled off... but its going to be kind of hard to sell the system when you have to explain that the reason for the sale is because it doesnt function correctly...

--"The Legislature also should call for an investigation of the original contractor of the system and those state officials and employees involved in making the decision."
-->Agreed. Why arent we holding MACOM responsible. Why arent we using legal action against them? They promised a product that they have failed to deliver and perfect time and time again... yet PA is just sitting with our thumbs up our ***'s doing absolutly nothing to hold the makers of Openscam accountable....

Sorry had to vent. Now back to your normal discussions =)

[HarrisRF]

I put a link in below, i dont know if thats where im supposed to put it. Nice fact sheet recently updated by the Office of Public Safety Radio in Pa concerning the Opensky system.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal...dfactsheet.pdf

[Warthog1]

Apparently the most reliable thing that MACOMM has is it's sales people !!

[DEPUTY11]

PSP Avondale on VHF for the past 2 days

[RogerH11]

Back in 1996 MA/Com had zero public safety radio systems with zero experirence in making any, let alone an entire state-wide system so why would anybody think it would work? The only reason they bought it is because they are secretive and the public can't hear them on a scanner. Then we have terrain where we'd have problems with the 800 band even with people or systems (Astro) that were proven to work and knew what they were doing. The problem started day one when the contract was signed with a company that had zero public safety systems and maybe three systems ever that covered industrial parks in the midwest.

[brey1234]

I wish the State Auditor General would conduct an investigation into the following:

I reviewed the state documentation of how the bid for a whole new radio system was awarded. An example: The state asked the prospective vendors to supply three OPERATING systems that each vendor had deployed. Ma/Com, which was bought out by Harris, put down Fed Ex twice and the third, the Orange County California Transit Authority. The problem: At the time the OCTA radio system was not OPERATING and the radios were not even installed in the buses.

What IS needed is a performance audit!

[jdouglasfisher]

New member here, and first post..

I apologize for not being radio savvy, but I have a rather dumb observational question..

Growing up as a kid in Northern New Jersey, many of the departments in the northern half of Passaic County were all on low band, somewhere in the 37 MHz range. It seemed that all the departments were on the same band, and everyone heard everyone else. Good for rural new jersey back in the 80's. Better when a bar brawl broke out at Flip's Tavern, and units from Ringwood and Pompton Lakes would come and assist Wanaque to break it up..

As time went on, many departments switched to the 150mhz range, but they all seemed to keep their low-band channel "just in case"...

Before I left New Jersey to come to PA, I had the pleasure of speaking with a few cops from the various departments regarding this, as it was cool to me seeing police cruisers with these huge whips on the cars.

To summarize the responses, I'll put it this way. When all else fails, and when someone's life is at stake, that low tech, low band option ALWAYS WORKS, no matter where you are. This perhaps is the reason why many fire departments in that area are still dispatched in the 45 mhz range.

I have to ask the question, isn't it counter-intuitive to go higher in frequency range, when lower frequencies do better going over the mountainous terrain like we have here in Pennsylvania?

I'm just getting back into scanning (and perhaps a ham radio ticket in the future) but this is what I remember from being a kid scanning my old neighborhood and talking on cb radio. Lower Frequencies do better over terrain, higher frequencies do better in city environs.

Educate me, maybe I'm missing something here.

Joe.

[ocguard]

Originally Posted by jdouglasfisher

New member here, and first post..

I apologize for not being radio savvy, but I have a rather dumb observational question..

Growing up as a kid in Northern New Jersey, many of the departments in the northern half of Passaic County were all on low band, somewhere in the 37 MHz range. It seemed that all the departments were on the same band, and everyone heard everyone else. Good for rural new jersey back in the 80's. Better when a bar brawl broke out at Flip's Tavern, and units from Ringwood and Pompton Lakes would come and assist Wanaque to break it up..

As time went on, many departments switched to the 150mhz range, but they all seemed to keep their low-band channel "just in case"...

Before I left New Jersey to come to PA, I had the pleasure of speaking with a few cops from the various departments regarding this, as it was cool to me seeing police cruisers with these huge whips on the cars.

To summarize the responses, I'll put it this way. When all else fails, and when someone's life is at stake, that low tech, low band option ALWAYS WORKS, no matter where you are. This perhaps is the reason why many fire departments in that area are still dispatched in the 45 mhz range.

I have to ask the question, isn't it counter-intuitive to go higher in frequency range, when lower frequencies do better going over the mountainous terrain like we have here in Pennsylvania?

I'm just getting back into scanning (and perhaps a ham radio ticket in the future) but this is what I remember from being a kid scanning my old neighborhood and talking on cb radio. Lower Frequencies do better over terrain, higher frequencies do better in city environs.

Educate me, maybe I'm missing something here.

Joe.

It's been discussed in length on this forum, and it is clearly one of the reasons the OpenSky system is such a failure. The concept of covering large, expansive, rural and mountainous areas with 800mhz is ridiculous. The state and it's vendors answered by installing THOUSANDS of tower sites (full high-sites and low-profile cell-type sites). The use of 800mhz is for densely populated urban and sub-urban areas with numerous buildings. Pennsylvania would have been better served by maintaining VHF systems. The only problem high-powered VHF is that it carries so well over distances that the frequency cannot be re-used anywhere close, whereas, with the 800mhz, the same frequency can be re-used at numerous locations throughout the state.

[Digenes]

I really wish the would dump this damn opensky system and convert to something different. Heck I would even be happy with P25, and stop wasting our tax money on this failed system. Everytime you turn around, they find they need to add a couple hundred more towers and even that isn't helping.

[TomJH]

My biggest concern is the way in which everything is tied together, one relying on the other. With today's unpredictable world, I would worry about one tower failing or worse, and the whole system, or a large part, shutting down or being inoperable.

[kaput]

My younger brother works for an IT company which handles equipment calls for PSP.

3 out of 5 calls is for OpenSky. The radios are constantly failing, and causing problems. I wish they would dump the system partially because our money is being wasted, and also, so I can listen in to what is going on.

I hope that with the fall of harrisburgs economy, and the constant repair work needed on the system, someone steps up and cuts the program for good.

Honestly, I want the state to sue Harris for the proposal and cost to upgrade the system and maintain the radios. If they go out of business, too bad. We were duped into this system, with little to no trials, no proven success in the real world.


It is sad that my state had to be the one to fail so bad with this technology.

[scan-pa]

a simple Vhf-Hi p25 trunked statewide system would have been a better setup.

[Septa3371CSX1]

Originally Posted by scan-pa

a simple Vhf-Hi p25 trunked statewide system would have been a better setup.

VHF High Band would definitely work best for PA. I've been in several remote areas of the state and find it hard to believe that 800 would work in these areas. South Dakota, Virginia, and a couple other states have VHF P25 statewide trunk systems and I'm sure they work better than this Open Scam crap.

[TomJH]

KAPUT The fall of Harrisburg's economy will not have an effect on the Open Sky unless you are talking about the Capitol as in the State. Even then, their problems are going to be more with how to deal with the pensions of the State union workers. Open sky won't be an issue. As far as being duped, some of that has to do with who is on the radio committee. I know some of the guys on Lancaster county's radio committee, and believe me, I wouldn't trust they wouldn't try to sell junk to their own constituents. People have been trying to tell others this won't work, but when you talk to politicians, when do they listen. Their belief system is it's not their money, you don't know anything, so shut up and pay your taxes Heck of an attitude heh? It don't help us any.

[Fast1eddie]

I agree and sadly been watching this mess unfold for over 10 years now with no end in sight. Nothing wrong with a solidly built VHF system, I think now that so much money has been sunk into Open Sky, it is too late to turn back. Was hoping Governor Corbett would ditch the Open Sky along with the LCE, turnpike commission and the many other wastefull enterprises the Commonwealth insists on keeping.

Do not have a answer other than to keep this issue in front of them, and scream loudly at election time.