View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2013, 7:42 AM
jim202 jim202 is offline
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans region
Posts: 2,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R8000 View Post
It appears you have first hand experience on how well Phase II works. Care to tell us the whole story ? I mean, you are an expert in it ..right ? Your an engineer ...right ? End user ?

Don't start jumping people for posting comments about radio system that you don't know the details about.

First of all, most of the radio systems that have been installed recently, probably were not constructed the way they were originally designed. Why, the reason is cost. The customer (public safety agency) asked for a system with "x" kind of coverage. When the final design came back and the estimated cost was laid on the table, the sticker shock probably caused a heart attack for one or two in the room. So they ended up with "y" for coverage.

What happened next is part of the problems we keep hearing about. The number of radio sites is cut back. The tower heights are lowered and the process continues until a manageable cost come out. Bottom line is that these agencies end up with a marginal radio coverage and all the complaints that go with it. Who is to blame in this? I would put the blame right at the feet of the public safety people that didn't understand what they were doing by cutting back on the cost. They probably didn't even have the brains to bring in a radio engineer to guide them in what they were doing.

So who do you blame? The agencies or the radio vendor for poor radio system performance. In this case, I would have to side with the radio vendor and say you got what you paid for.

A better approach might be to do the radio system in stages. Do some of it one year. Then the following year, add to it. After a number of years you can end up with a decent radio system. Might seem like a never ending process, but the sticker shock is spread over a number of years and doesn't feel so bad as all at once. Plus it gives the system time to shake out any issues that came to the surface right up front. It allows these issues to be resolved as the system develops.

Not all people look at building a system over a number of years. They can't understand the advantages. Plus it allows the public safety agencies to budget a reasonable amount of funds each year rather than all at once.

I have been involved in several of these multi year radio system projects. Like the first year you put in a repeater. The next year you purchase new portable radios. The following year you replace all the mobile radios. What ever choice you make as to what equipment or site facilities it is, the multi year process is much less painful.

The stigma of the different radio vendors names seems to be more at play here than the radio systems issues. Harris has been taking it on the chin for some time now over the MA-COM radio systems they took over. Why blame Harris for something they didn't do? It will take many years to overcome the "Open Sky" radio system problem they inherited when they bought out MA-COM. Why are you not blaming Motorola for all their trunking system blunders that have taken place? They are just as guilty as any other company. It's just that Motorola is better at hiding the problems.
__________________
Jim
Reply With Quote