State (MARCS) vs Local (Parma P25) how to chose?

[budevans]

Currently there are 47 different public safety radio systems in Cuyahoga County.

After 9/11 local, state and federal government agency's decided it was in the publics best interests to move to an interoperable public safety radio system. To achieve this goal the federal government is offering to pay the lion's share of the cost.

How does a local government decide how to proceed. The issues are politically, technically and financially complex.

Today in Cuyahoga County there appears to be two choices. First, move to the State of Ohio MARCS system (not a P25 system yet, but they are working to that end). Second, install your own or partner with another community to install a P25 system (like the City of Parma's Project P25).

Let me know what you think.

 

[mdulrich]

MARCS was not designed to have the large metro areas in the state to use the system for their primary radio system. You won't see them on MARCS so you can remove that as your option.

Mike

 

[hoser147]

Mike probably hit the nail on the head, I also would look for them to go with their own system or partner with another agency.

 

[budevans]

Thanks for the quick feedback. In the past I'd always thought of MARCS as a State only system. Recently I've heard comments from local communities regarding their options for radion system upgrades. At first they assumed they'd have to go with Parma's P25 since they couldn't afford it on their own. Now I'm hearing some communities are looking at MARCS as an option.

FYI, currently there are local public safety first responders on MARCS, in Cuyahog County. Most are comprised of small local communities sharing a common dispatch.

Mike made the comment that MARCS wasn't designed to handle the Locals. That was true when it was first created in the mid 90's. Today MARCS is in the process of being updated to P25 (the full P25, trunk and CAI). When completed that will give the system the ability to handle over 65000 talk groups. That's a lot of talk groups. I bet that would handle the entire state including local and county.

I decided to looked up the MARCS Mission Statement. It says they will provide services to Local, County and State public safety and local responders. I also checked The State of Ohio Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan, it makes the same statements.

So I'm not so sure the MARCS isn't an option. Can anyone reference MARCS or The State of Ohio documentation saying that local communities can't be on MARCS?

 

[mdulrich]

I didn't say MARCS wasn't designed to handle the locals, I said it wasn't designed to handle the large metro areas, i.e. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, etc. If you noticed the area around Cincinnati put in their own system, they didn't get on MARCS.

I don't know as it is an issue with talkgroups, but frequencies available. I can't point you to a document, but I have been in meetings where it was stated that the large metro areas wouldn't be on MARCS. They may use it for interoperatability purposes, but not for their day-to-day operations.

Mike

 

[ibagli]

The reasons why large cities won't move to MARCS is explained here by wa8pyr.

 

[Steveofcleve]

State v Parma P25 - Cleveland Trunk

According to the latest news media reports, Cleveland is currently seeking bids, on a 'closed' basis to the tune of $30 - 60 million dollars. They are not making their towers and dispatch facilities available for examination or review by potential bidders and are requesting the bidders to utilize some recently purchased equipment, if possible. This 'closed' processed is leaving potential bidders in the dark and appears to be hindering the process. It will be interesting to see if Cleveland remains encrypted.

 

[ibagli]

They aren't encrypted now, so they wouldn't "remain" encrypted.

 

[Steveofcleve]

Clarification

Sorry I misstated that Cleveland is encrypted. They are not but because they use the Vselp System Voice, they cannot be scanned. I presented the question as to 'encryption' only as it would relate to future planning by Cleveland through outright encryption or exclusive system voice.

 

[wa8pyr]

Mike made the comment that MARCS wasn't designed to handle the Locals. That was true when it was first created in the mid 90's. Today MARCS is in the process of being updated to P25 (the full P25, trunk and CAI). When completed that will give the system the ability to handle over 65000 talk groups. That's a lot of talk groups. I bet that would handle the entire state including local and county.

I decided to looked up the MARCS Mission Statement. It says they will provide services to Local, County and State public safety and local responders. I also checked The State of Ohio Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan, it makes the same statements.

So I'm not so sure the MARCS isn't an option. Can anyone reference MARCS or The State of Ohio documentation saying that local communities can't be on MARCS?

No specific documentation (you won't see any) but I was specifically told by MARCS that the large metro agencies weren't being considered due to loading issues. A few small local agencies or suburbs is one thing and MARCS could be a good thing for them; the public safety agencies of a large city are another thing altogether.

The issue isn't the number of available talkgroups or individual ID numbers, although that's part of it. The major issue is the number of frequencies versus the number of talkgroups and the number of busies. If you only have 5 channels at a site, you can only handle 4 conversations at a time; anything more than that and someone is going to get a busy signal. Even a 28 channel site in a major metro area would be hard pressed to handle the loading of a major metropolitan public safety division, and smaller local or suburban agencies, and the state agencies, and interoperability.

 

[wa8pyr]

According to the latest news media reports, Cleveland is currently seeking bids, on a 'closed' basis to the tune of $30 - 60 million dollars. They are not making their towers and dispatch facilities available for examination or review by potential bidders and are requesting the bidders to utilize some recently purchased equipment, if possible. This 'closed' processed is leaving potential bidders in the dark and appears to be hindering the process. It will be interesting to see if Cleveland remains encrypted.

'Recently purchased equipment' could likely refer to the P25-capable stuff they've been buying for interoperability.

 

[budevans]

According to the latest news media reports, Cleveland is currently seeking bids, on a 'closed' basis to the tune of $30 - 60 million dollars. They are not making their towers and dispatch facilities available for examination or review by potential bidders and are requesting the bidders to utilize some recently purchased equipment, if possible. This 'closed' processed is leaving potential bidders in the dark and appears to be hindering the process. It will be interesting to see if Cleveland remains encrypted.

According to yesterdays Plain Dealer article the equipment that Cleveland PD purchased last year was a ($2 million dollar) Motorola Zone Controller. The article said it was purchased using Federal funds (use it or lose it). The controller is compatible with the States (I assume that means MARCS) radio system. If Cleveland decides to use another vendor, the controller will be given to the State.

Regarding encrypting, we'll see. They have options, they could choose to encrypt only certain areas liket SWAT, surveylance, etc.. and leave standard patrol and fire in the clear. It costs extra to encrypt each radio, so they could save money by being selective.

Time will tell.