• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Permian Basin Regional Interoperability Network Abandoned?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rn1nduk1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
89
Location
Odessa, Texas
#1
New Radio System Will Allow Better Communication For Odessa'

Saw this story. Anyone have any info on it? Are they going solo like Midland did, or is the, what seems to be, un-utilized, Wide Area Network being abandoned?

Or is the network going to convert to Phase II?

The impression is that they are going solo. If they programmed the radios with the talk groups, they can talk to each other. I.E. Midland PD was on Metro I not long ago trying to raise OPD for a chase entering Odessa. Odessa never answered Metro I. That what I mean. They have the capabilities, but dont use what they have.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 14, 2014
Messages
110
Location
Lubbock, TX
#2
I find it particularly amusing that they're claiming to be able to provide better service. From what I understand, the Permian system is quite capable, and provides as many (or more) features than the City of Odessa will likely 'upgrade' to.

That leads me to ask... I'm wondering if it is a true system replacement, or if they're only only paying to add certain features to what they've got. I believe the article said two million dollars... That's not very much money at all in the grand scheme.
 

NC5267

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
967
Location
San Antonio
#3
Down here in San Antonio they upgraded a lot of portable radios to newer Harris ones and a base station or two for the PD, FD, and even Animal Control. Just that upgrade cost a little over 2 million. So anything more would definitely cost more than a couple million. Odessa is a smaller town so I don't know. Getting their own system would seem a lot more costly. But it looks like Midland did that so who knows.

Also they are showing the old XTS1500 and 2500 radios in that story so an upgrade to the APX models would be pretty costly as well.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,237
Location
Texas
#4
Reading the article, it looks like they are bringing their infrastructure up to meet the current core release on Astro 25. I'm not reading into that too much, but I am aware of a certain core that is being upgraded in the next two weeks elsewhere in the state that will drop support for some older infrastructure setups, some of which are in the age range suggested by the article. Put those together…and it could suggest an interesting future.
 

KE5PL

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
68
Location
Midland, TX
#5
Not abandoned, just moving to a different host

The old technology referred to in this article, primarily referenced the ARC4000 switch, which hasn't been (officially) supported by Motorola for several years. The followers on the PBRICS TRS discussions know that the ARC4000 supported the 9 - VHF and 3 - 800 sites owned by the PBRPC in addition to the two city of Odessa owned sites. The 800 MHz PBRPC owned sites are at Notrees, Gardendale, and SE Midland county.

Odessa wanted the PBRPC to pay several hundred thousand annually for the privilege of connecting to the new switch. As the PBRPC relies entirely on Homeland Security grants to build and sustain their 12 sites, this was not an option. In essence, the PBRPC would be subsidizing the maintenance of the new Odessa switch and console equipment. Even though those three PBRPC-owned sites significantly improved the coverage *outside of the Odessa city limits*, Odessa remained adamant that the PBRPC ante' up. So much for level 5 interoperability, we can never seem to quite get on the same page as the Austin area managed to do. (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/interoperability_continuum_brochure_2.pdf)
We will have the capability, but typically, it is difficult to get the end user to manually change zones (systems) as they leave their jurisdictional coverage area (particularly when they are in pursuit mode).

Enter the city of Austin GATTRS) which does not charge the outlying entities to connect their infrastructure. If you haven't already, check out the (mostly VHF) sites that connect to GATTRS. Particularly the MRGDC, STDC, and Llano, Burnet, Blanco counties. Only related costs to the PBRPC will be for subscriber template approval, any direct manpower costs incurred at hourly rate by GATTRS. This makes it a no-brainer.

As it sits now, the plan is to connect the PBRPC sites to GATTRS. This complies with a long term goal identified in 2007 of having a statewide TRS. This move will be in phases, grant funds permitting, beginning in April 2017. First phase will be the sites generally South of IH20.

The upside is that seamless roaming will be available to users that have reprogrammed to GATTRS (13E). Coverage depending upon subscriber radio (dual band) capability. The downside is that portable radio coverage for the 800 MHz users will suffer, most notably DPS, UTPB and ECSO. This has been openly discussed, but it does not appear to be an issue with the decision makers. The PBRPC TRS was intended for regional *mobile* coverage. It should be noted that *some* entities regularly using the PBRPC-owned 800 MHz sites pay a user fee to Odessa.

There is lot of duplication of infrastructure. Three public safety switches are in play in our region: Midland, Odessa, and regional/statewide. And it is not fiscally viable to connect them. Technically it can, but several features won't (at present) cross over when it involves disparate vendors.

Usual disclaimers apply: My observations, my opinions. No one else's.
 

rn1nduk1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
89
Location
Odessa, Texas
#6
That kinda the gist I got. What KE5PL said. Sounds political overall. Also understand that someone claims when they convert, will "knock out scanners". Interpreted they will encrypt everything with adp or hardware encryption also


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,237
Location
Texas
#7
The old technology referred to in this article, primarily referenced the ARC4000 switch, which hasn't been (officially) supported by Motorola for several years. The followers on the PBRICS TRS discussions know that the ARC4000 supported the 9 - VHF and 3 - 800 sites owned by the PBRPC in addition to the two city of Odessa owned sites. The 800 MHz PBRPC owned sites are at Notrees, Gardendale, and SE Midland county.



Odessa wanted the PBRPC to pay several hundred thousand annually for the privilege of connecting to the new switch. As the PBRPC relies entirely on Homeland Security grants to build and sustain their 12 sites, this was not an option. In essence, the PBRPC would be subsidizing the maintenance of the new Odessa switch and console equipment. Even though those three PBRPC-owned sites significantly improved the coverage *outside of the Odessa city limits*, Odessa remained adamant that the PBRPC ante' up. So much for level 5 interoperability, we can never seem to quite get on the same page as the Austin area managed to do. (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/interoperability_continuum_brochure_2.pdf)

We will have the capability, but typically, it is difficult to get the end user to manually change zones (systems) as they leave their jurisdictional coverage area (particularly when they are in pursuit mode).



Enter the city of Austin GATTRS) which does not charge the outlying entities to connect their infrastructure. If you haven't already, check out the (mostly VHF) sites that connect to GATTRS. Particularly the MRGDC, STDC, and Llano, Burnet, Blanco counties. Only related costs to the PBRPC will be for subscriber template approval, any direct manpower costs incurred at hourly rate by GATTRS. This makes it a no-brainer.



As it sits now, the plan is to connect the PBRPC sites to GATTRS. This complies with a long term goal identified in 2007 of having a statewide TRS. This move will be in phases, grant funds permitting, beginning in April 2017. First phase will be the sites generally South of IH20.



The upside is that seamless roaming will be available to users that have reprogrammed to GATTRS (13E). Coverage depending upon subscriber radio (dual band) capability. The downside is that portable radio coverage for the 800 MHz users will suffer, most notably DPS, UTPB and ECSO. This has been openly discussed, but it does not appear to be an issue with the decision makers. The PBRPC TRS was intended for regional *mobile* coverage. It should be noted that *some* entities regularly using the PBRPC-owned 800 MHz sites pay a user fee to Odessa.



There is lot of duplication of infrastructure. Three public safety switches are in play in our region: Midland, Odessa, and regional/statewide. And it is not fiscally viable to connect them. Technically it can, but several features won't (at present) cross over when it involves disparate vendors.



Usual disclaimers apply: My observations, my opinions. No one else's.


I wasn't 100% sure of the current phase of the official tie in. I work primarily on the Western Counties (Llano, Blanco, Burnet) side but may be getting some more work on the Wilco/CoA sides.

Portable coverage is awesome on the 800 side (it is a well built system). CoA is upgrading the core to 7.15 in a week and my previous post was under the assumption the merger plans were still moving forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

KE5PL

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
68
Location
Midland, TX
#9
GATTRS move

It appears that the move to GATTRS begins mid-April 2017. This will occur in three phases, due to limited grant funding. Phase one includes Gomez Peak (Kent), Glass Mountain (Marathon), Coates (Iraan), King Mountain (McCamey), and Sanderson (all VHF). The balance of the sites, including the three 800 MHz sites, remain on the Odessa ARC4000 until it craters, or until the next grant is made available. Then, those remaining sites transition to GATTRS.

There are no plans to temporarily patch the two, primarily due to a lack of resources. Odessa's remaining two sites (Troy Road and Pool Road) become simulcast.

Yeah, i did the math too. Two disparate TRS within 20 miles of each other, two cities contiguous to each other. A regional/statewide overlay TRS for the rest of the region. My tax dollars at work... But good for the Motorola and Harris stockholders. But not unique when you consider the Metroplex. Something like 17 switches in two counties?
 

rn1nduk1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
89
Location
Odessa, Texas
#10
Kinda late on this KE5PL said "We will have the capability, but typically, it is difficult to get the end user to manually change zones (systems) as they leave their jurisdictional coverage area (particularly when they are in pursuit mode)." Thought could on a trs. Don't some places the dispatcher can move all radios involved to a specific channel for an event?

In the end, I think the PRIN TRS will need workers to clean the birds nest and cob webs off of the towers.

I hope I am wrong though. What little history I know, this was propped up to be a major thing, and cost millions to build to basically become worthless. Just my opinion..
 

rn1nduk1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
89
Location
Odessa, Texas
#11
Forgot.....we ought to raise cain with our reps at state and federal level on this. West Texas is so odd. I.E. Midland People are black and white difference from Odessa People That probally why the interop never seems to have really got off the ground. each city/town/community is all in it for themselves only
 

KE5PL

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
68
Location
Midland, TX
#12
Kinda late on this KE5PL said "We will have the capability, but typically, it is difficult to get the end user to manually change zones (systems) as they leave their jurisdictional coverage area (particularly when they are in pursuit mode)." Thought could on a trs. Don't some places the dispatcher can move all radios involved to a specific channel for an event?

In the end, I think the PRIN TRS will need workers to clean the birds nest and cob webs off of the towers.

I hope I am wrong though. What little history I know, this was propped up to be a major thing, and cost millions to build to basically become worthless. Just my opinion..
Our goal, beginning in 2007, using Federal funding sources such as SHSP was to get all regional public safety communications back on the same page. We used the "Texas Talks" initiative as the ultimate goal for a statewide communications network. The city of Midland initially chaired the regional interoperability committee. Ironically, they were the first to bail after Motorola was selected as the preferred vendor, and Midland went with Daily-Wells. More recently, Odessa wanted the PBRPC to subsidize their infrastructure (including consoles) for the privilege of connecting to their new core (despite the fact that the PBRPC operates three 800 MHz sites that enhanced Odessa's two-site coverage).

Yet again, the "not in my sandbox" political attitude reigns supreme in Midland-Odessa (DFW?). And the guys on the street and the taxpayers suffer for it. We still can't talk *in the Metro area*.

And now we hear that yet another standalone TRS is going up in Howard County. <sigh>

The opinions expressed herein, blah, blah, blah.
 

hiegtx

Mentor
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
5,928
Location
Dallas, TX
#13
Yet again, the "not in my sandbox" political attitude reigns supreme in Midland-Odessa (DFW?). And the guys on the street and the taxpayers suffer for it. We still can't talk *in the Metro area*.

And now we hear that yet another standalone TRS is going up in Howard County. <sigh>

The opinions expressed herein, blah, blah, blah.
We still see that same attitude at times here in the DFW area. Most of the Tarrant County cities are on the same page with FWRRS being the system of choice. On the Dallas side, we still have a collection of single city systems, or ones with no more than four participants. Once Dallas & Dallas County get their new system online, it's a crap shoot whether some of the remaining small suburbs sign on, or keep their existing two or three channel conventional systems.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
2,542
Location
New Orleans region
#14
Interop communications around the country is political and not equipment limited. Unless the upper management is willing to support an interop program and support it's use, you will never see it accepted. The poor guy out in the field are the ones that suffer.

I use to work for a company that built a software driven interop gateway. It was very well designed and I installed a pile of them around the country. The Federal Government agencies was one of the largest users of the gateways. They had the ability to inter connect all sorts of radios to all sorts of public safety agencies as well as other government agencies.

Public safety agencies was a hit and miss user of the Interoperability gateways. Just about all the public safety agencies I interfaced with had the National Interoperability frequencies programmed into their radios. As has been pointed out by others, unless there is regular training and exercises that will use the interop gateways and the National interop channels, the end users forget how to change their radios to those channels.

The old saying of use it or loose it comes into play here with the end users and their radios. Most of the end users only change to one or maybe 3 channels or so on a regular basis. Trying to get them to change zones, groups or what ever name is used for the brand radio they have is like telling the user they have to drive a tractor trailer for a day. It just isn't going to happen.

I have lost track just how many mobile command vehicles I have worked on installing interop equipment. The users of those vehicles realize just how important that vehicle will become in a major incident. But again, unless they are allowed to have regular training in those vehicles, the operator's memory will forget all the small little details on just how the equipment in that vehicle functions and what it's capability is.

The gateways I was working with had the ability to use the standard Internet to make connections with other gateways. You could use just about any computer and install a small client software program and be able to remotely control one or more gateways, also using an Internet connection. You could even have the ability to change channels the radio would transmit on remotely through the gateway they were connected to. The gateways also had the ability to send paging tones to alert pagers like many fire departments use. It also had an option to be able to record the voice traffic on any port you selected. This could then be downloaded after the incident to be use in an after action critique.

The state of Virginia funded the gateways that were installed in just about every County dispatch center and many of their mobile command vehicles. This provided a state wide ability to have an interoperability network that was always available. The gateway radio system didn't matter if it was a low band simplex system or an 800 MHz. trunking system. As long as you had a radio to use for the connection, you were able to patch them together.

I am trying to stay neutral here in not naming any brand of gateway or supporting one company over another. If anyone is looking for further details, send me a private message. I will get back with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top