I agree with you, but aside from all that. How do they nip spending on this in the butt and make what they have (and can barely afford) work for now, until comes such a day when a complete buildout is done...if it's done.
They are currently using VHF. So lets take the VHF they have and figure out a way to integrate it to the current 800 system, just for fun, cause I like talking radios. Would a solution like I laid out in my first statement work?
"I'm curious if the troubled areas could interface something such as an ACU-1000 or a SmartBridge on a few of their existing VHF towers, connect them to the 800 system via either a dedicated hardline or microwave point to point to the zone controller and fill in the missing 800 areas with the old, reliable VHF systems. I'm not a system designer, but going off past experience with different systems and interoperability issues in the greater Chicagoland area, this seems like a less costly alternative to complete transition to an 800 system that has its many flaws to begin with. Then, those that use the 800 system would be able to talk to those that don't even if they are standing next to each other.
Granted, for the users of the 800 system to travel into an uncovered area on mutual aid, you would have the reverse problem. Those users would have to switch to the VHF frequency, so someone would still have to carry 2 different radios. But it takes the burden off of the smaller agencies that couldn't afford a trunking portable, let alone several, plus vehicle radios and the such.
Is it possible to install 800 radios set to the statewide or nationwide mutual aid simplex channels on the existing VHF towers, which are then bridged to the appropriate talkgroups used by the 800 user (over a point to point), that are then bridged again to the VHF channels in use? I don't know. I'm sure there would be latency issues, but something is better than nothing!
Under those conditions, you are still spending a lot on bridging equipment, and you would have to multi-bridge, which I would think would lend to some potential equipment failures when needed. But again, something is better than nothing. Again, I'm not a system designer, just tossing ideas around."
If you had select VHF towers equipped with 800 simplex mutual aid transceivers (National/Statewide simplex), and linked them to the zone controller of a close 800 system tower (microwave, trunked linked, hardwire, etc...), then patched that into a talkgroup, would that solve the issue of 800 radios in VHF areas? Likewise, if you had VHF simplex mutual aid channels (National/Statewide) on select 800 system towers (All of this, of course, in the transitional areas between systems) linked to a SmartBridge or ACU-1000 that bridged them over to the 800 simplex channels, that would ultimately be patched to the affected agencies talkgroup; would that solve the VHF in 800 territory problem?
The caveat to this would be the need for a county communications van with a bridge system that could be implemented after the initial response goes out and uses the capabilities of the VHF/800 bridge system that would be in place. Once more agencies start coming together, the need for a bolstered infrastructure would go up, and the comm van could carry the extra traffic the transitional VHF/800 bridge gets saturated with.
My bet would be in the long run, over the years, the agencies that use VHF would still be able to use VHF. Their cost would be lower because they are using "cheaper" technology, and the replacement costs would be lower over time. Problem areas with the VHF could use the "old and outdated" mobile extenders (in-vehicle repeaters) that would fill in problem areas when on portables. Encryption and security is possible even on VHF bands, so the agencies that need it can still use it. It's been several years since I worked in crypto, but I bet if you "kicked" (keyed the encryption) the encryption (as long as the crypto technology is compatible) on both the VHF and 800 radios the same, compatibility across the bands should not be an issue. And then the agencies that need/already have the 800 system would continue to use their system.
A system of compatibility already exists in the Denver Metro area where EDACS and P25 radios can't talk together without a bridge. Can the same concept be used to "cross the bands," so to speak? Boulder County comes to mind, where DTRS talkgroups are patched to VHF.
I'm sure there's more to it that meets the eye, but at least it's an attempt to continue to use what you have and stay within your means if you are a smaller agency.