This thread is for Lancaster Counties New MA/COM OpenSKy Digital Trunk System.
Tommahawk said:Unofficially "Officially" (Since the Announcement has not been made yet by LCWC) yesterday at the Inter- Municipality the M/ACOM 800mhz Opensky system has been scrapped.
* The new system that the County is looking at is M/ACOM 500mhz EDACS system which will be compatible with both Lebanon and York Counties.
Tommahawk said:Gosh I can't make this stuff up. It makes me so happy to be writing this.
Unofficially "Officially" (Since the Announcement has not been made yet by LCWC) yesterday at the Inter- Municipality the M/ACOM 800mhz Opensky system has been scrapped.
Here are the details that I have found out:
* New System will not be online till the year 2011
All pubic safety are encouraged to buy the radios that you need for your usage until that time for the current radio system (33mhz/154mhz).
* The new system that the County is looking at is M/ACOM 500mhz EDACS system which will be compatible with both Lebanon and York Counties.
* LCWC will place this on hold till the new commissioners take office in January.
* The existing tower infrastructure is already there. Might be a few new towers popping up here and there, but that is it.
* I have heard the delay till 2011 is because of the court battle between Lancaster and M/ACOM, but I can't confirm that.
I realized that you already posted under that topic, but I believe a first hand account from a Fire Chief is believeable....... Afterall you won't find the County of Lancaster publishing details on it.....We Chiefs were told: it is now official. Not only will it not be Open Sky, it will not be M/A-Com.
Tommahawk said:They are in storage, but imagine the price of the radios that they have already purchased. Now they have to somewhat makeup the costs of the radios......
Tommahawk said:You won't find any documentation in the secretive world of Lancaster County. Because the County of Lancaster doesn't want the information published, but hopefully when I go to the County Commissioners meeting on Wednesday this will change. Hopefully the two individuals that I have asked to come with me will be able to be off of work and ask the very tough questions...... Is it against the sunshine law that the County of Lancaster keeps this information silent? Yes it is. Is it wrong? Yes it is.
I don't have a lot of faith in LCWC over this issue. There are several other issues outside of the current radio system that should have made headlines, but haven't. How do I know? I used to work at the 911 center!
My only agenda now is to make sure that the County of Lancaster, especially LCWC realizes that they aren't above the federal government. Even the federal government posts information about their systems. I have heard with my own ears that LCWC doesn't want to publish the information due to security reasons which I find to be bull****.....
Septa3371CSX1 said:After reading through this topic and related ones with the troubles involving Open Scam, I feel maybe it isn't the best choice for many places around here. When I saw that in order for the system to provide full coverage in Lancaster County 51 towers would have to be built, I said "That is way too many towers." Even when they said they could reduce it to 30 by using something that I can't think of the name of, I still thought that was too many towers. A rural area like Lancaster County should NOT be using weak 800 megahertz frequencies. 800 mHz is better suited for urban areas where terrain is not a major issue with coverage. I feel Lancaster County should stick with a UHF Hi band system. It would require far fewer towers and better coverage. For those who follow the PA STARNet system, if you've noticed, Penn DOT is retaining the lowband radios in areas where the 800 mHz coverage is not there. I don't know why all these agencies feel 800 mHz is the best option. If you ask me the frequencies that provide the best coverage seem to be in the UHF Hi region (406-512 mHz). Delaware County in PA as well as Camden and Gloucester Counties in NJ use 500 mHz conventional systems for public safety radios. The coverage on them is pretty good and gets the job done. Another problem I have with Open Scam is the fact that no scanner on the market today can decode it. As a concerned citizen I may want to know how my tax money is being spent. If I hear all this talk about a new radio system, I may want to listen to it to see if it was worth it. Open Scam doesn't seem to be worth the money in rural areas.