Brookhaven to move to CHATCOMM this fall

[MTS2000des]

The city council votes 3-1 to move 911 dispatching to CHATCOMM this fall. Don't know if they means they will leave the DeKalb DTRS, but the new Unified Radio System is supposed to be online this summer, with most CHATCOMM agencies transitioning over. I would imagine Brookhaven and Dunwoody will follow suit. FWIW Dunwoody just got new EF Johnson VP600 portables with the phase 2 upgrade which would make sense as the new URS is a 100 percent phase 2 network (with encryption too).

Brookhaven Council votes to join ChatComm - Reporter Newspapers

 

[ButchGone]

Are you talking about the new Fulton County P25 system, or is this an entirely new P25 system for the north metro cities? I'm still amazed how the metro Atlanta area continues to fragment, with all these new cities and trunked systems segregating.
BG..

 

[MTS2000des]

Are you talking about the new Fulton County P25 system, or is this an entirely new P25 system for the north metro cities? I'm still amazed how the metro Atlanta area continues to fragment, with all these new cities and trunked systems segregating.
BG..

That's what were all about..."separate but not necessarily equal"

Fulton county is replacing their 26 year old Smartnet II analog with an Astro 25 7.13 Phase 2 DTRS, to go live July 1st of this year: Most talkgroups will be phase 1 as they initially are not replacing their subscriber radios, phase 2 traffic will strictly be roamers, until the phase 1 radios are replaced over the next 3-5 years with phase 2 equipment.

The North Fulton system, known as the "Unified Radio System" is a SEPARATE system owned by the cities of Sandy Springs, Roswell, Alpharetta and Milton, also set to be a phase 2 network:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...jrwCk5kqb8duMYQWfVrKDPQ&bvm=bv.63808443,d.b2I

There will be ISSI roaming for users between the two disparate networks.

 

[ButchGone]

Thanks for the info, and sharing the document. Wow, north metro will be served by DTRS from Atlanta, Fulton, DeKalb and Cobb... and UASI.Talk about overlap! Funny, how people in certain communities decry "big government," but create so many redundant layers of bureaucracy just so they can have their own sandbox.
Here in southeast Tennessee, communities worked together to create a regional Phase 1,2 system that blankets the whole eastern side of the state and upper northwest Georgia, that's now part of a statewide TN system. Worked great last night, with a chase that started north of Chattanooga and ended in Gordon County GA with multiple agencies. Dispatchers patched all talkgroups together, and everyone involved could communicate without reaching for the channel selector button. How would such a chase work in metro Atlanta?
BG..

 

[MTS2000des]

Funny, how people in certain communities decry "big government," but create so many redundant layers of bureaucracy just so they can have their own sandbox.

They are typical of the hypocrites that spawn this landscape. On one hand they complain about "big government=big taxes" yet look at how the citizens of Sandy Springs, for instance, end up paying TWICE for radio communications that aren't needed. Had the elitists in North Fulton worked WITH and not AGAINST the county on their new system and became a stakeholder, the cost would be substantially less to taxpayers, infrastructure would be shared and thus, better coverage, and true interoperability without having to ISSI (which DOES add significant cost to the software upgrades to many current radios, including but not limited to the XTS/XTL radios now in use by most agencies).

How would such a chase work in metro Atlanta?
.

Oh, the same way it does today, with the old "Harry tells Sally" routine of dispatcher pass the dutchie relay game the way we have done it since most of the closed, proprietary non-interconnected trunking systems were implemented back in the early 1990s.

Once upon a time in the old days when everyone was on VHF and UHF analog conventional, there WAS more interoperability in metro Atlanta, to a certain degree.

But we've always had a certain flavor of "my county rules, yours sucks" and it's only gotten worse as the years have gone by. It's not just limited to radio communications. Take our transit system, or lack thereof, we will NEVER be a world class city without a real mutli-county public transit system. I guess we'd rather sit in countless hours of gridlock TURD traffic road raging then ever convince our so-called "leaders" to get a real transportation plan and implement it in our lifetime.

Welcome to Gawga.

 

[rapidcharger]

How would such a chase work in metro Atlanta?
BG..

I can tell you how it would work in atlanta but I don't even think a car chase in Alpharetta/Milton is even possible. See there, you cannot even move as the roads are clogged by soccer moms in their minivans moving at a snail's pace and 40-something men driving BMW and Volvo station wagons who's mission in life it is to create rolling road blocks. The needless addition of hundreds of traffic signals virtually guarantees gridlock so a car chase wouldn't get very far.

 

[SCPD]

Countywide & Regional Radio Systems

MTS2000des & ButchGone,

I can only disagree with both of you in your positions on this matter when it comes to a countywide or regional radio system and what you call "typical of the hypocrites that spawn this landscape", "big government = big taxes" and "redundant layers of bureaucracy just so they can have their own sandbox." I can tell by both of your posts that you do not have inside knowledge of the financial aspects of the costs associated with managing two-way radios on a system of this type or have given much thought to the fact that maybe these cities have taken a hard look at what is actually happening with these big systems and are looking at their options to possibly save money and have more control. Two things of which I don't think either of you would disagree with, especially as a taxpayer.

You know the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice, shame on me", well maybe the management in some of the cities are wising up to what is truly happening with these big systems when it comes to the financial impact it is having on their budgets and they are comparing how much they are paying to what they are really getting verses actually need. Also, I don't think the cities on a countywide system are the only ones looking at their cost and comparing to what they are actually getting because I think you can throw college and university police departments into this same mix. I realize this may not always be the case in every jurisdiction and the way system maintenance costs and system replacement costs are handled is not the same with every system. In some cases I don't necessarily think it only has to do with having "their own sandbox." I personally believe the introduction of ISSI has gotten some users to thinking about how much being on a countywide or regional system is really costing them, then comparing this to what they are getting verses what they really need. The introduction of ISSI could help get some municipalities and possibly even some counties back on track to the point where they are getting what they are paying for and have the coverage they need for regular daily operations, but have the ability to roam to larger coverage areas when needed. Maybe ISSI could provide the best of both worlds by giving agencies the coverage they need the majority of the time while meeting their financial needs and give them the ability for radios to roam as required. I know I may have some people confused about this, so let me explain below.

In some jurisdictions where a countywide or regional system is in place the system owner (either a county or regional governing authority/body) splits the total cost of the annual maintenance agreement for the system infrastructure equally among the user agencies based on a per radio basis per year. Example: the cost of an annual maintenance agreement on the fixed end of a system is $1 million a year with 3000 radios on the system then each agency pays $333.33 per radio, per year which equals $27.77 per radio, per month. (Calculation: $1,000,000 per year maintenance agreement divided by 3000 radios = $333.33 per radio, per year divided by 12 months = $27.77 per radio, per month).

Also, in some of these same jurisdictions the system owner requires user agencies to pay system replacement costs that is also split equally among user agencies on a per radio basis per year. Example: the estimated cost to replace the system infrastructure is estimated at $10 million and has an estimated useful life of 10 years with 3000 radios on the system then each agency pays $333.33 per radio, per year which equals $27.77 per radio, per month (Calculation: $10,000,000 to replace a system divided by 10 years = $1,000,000 per year divided by 3000 radios = $333.33 per year, per radio divided by 12 months = $27.77 per radio per month).

Using the calculations in the two paragraphs above if your agency operates radios on a system where the system owner charges both an annual maintenance fee and a system replacement fee your agency is paying $666.66 per radio, per year or $55.555 per radio per month. If your agency is operating 600 of the 3000 radios on the system this would be $399,996 per year to utilize the system which equals $3,999,960.00 over the 10 year period the system is expected to last before needing to be replaced. Also remember these costs do not include any fees each agency pays for an annual maintenance agreement on their mobiles, portables and control stations. Add this to the annual system maintenance fee and system replacement fee and costs can get on up there even for the small agencies.

Now ask yourself, if this is a six site 800 MHz P25 digital trunked simulcast radio system with 15 channels providing RF coverage for a territory of over 300 square miles does it make sense for your city that only covers 15 square miles to be paying these kind of fees for two-way radio services? How many times on an annual basis do the police officers, firefighters and other radio users employed by your city go outside of your city limits to deliver services like mutual aid to other agencies? On average, how many times in a year is interoperability actually used? Is it used enough to warrant paying these kind of annual fees to be on a system with six sites, 15 channel system providing over 300 square miles of RF coverage on a daily basis or would your city be better served by a two site, six channel system providing slightly over 22 square miles of coverage that has ISSI roaming capabilities so public safety and other users can roam over to the other systems free of charge to provide mutual aid services to the other agencies?

Now lets look at another scenario, what if you are the police chief of a University Police Department with 20 officers covering a jurisdiction of only two square miles. Would you want utilize only two talkgroups on the six site, 15 channel system that provides over 300 miles of RF coverage on a daily basis and pay $19,999.80 per year for your agency's 20 portables, 8 mobiles and two desktop control stations to be on the system or would you be better off operationally and financially by having two 800 MHz P25 conventional repeaters on your own tower and pay maintenance on these at about $15.00 per month, per repeater and still have the county system in all of your radios at no charge because your personnel only use the system when receiving or providing mutual aid?

Have you guys thought about it like this? Maybe cities having their own systems and ISSI roaming to county systems isn't such a bad idea after all. I welcome any thoughts and comments.

 

[MTS2000des]

MTS2000des & ButchGone,
I can tell by both of your posts that you do not have inside knowledge of the financial aspects of the costs associated with managing two-way radios on a system of this type

You got me there Bob, my experience is limited to operating radio systems on a shoestring budget. I wish I had deep pockets to reach into, but I don't. What I have learned over the years is by working together with other folks and getting core stakeholders together, resources can be pooled, and everyone benefits and pays less than if everyone strikes out on their own.

have given much thought to the fact that maybe these cities have taken a hard look at what is actually happening with these big systems and are looking at their options to possibly save money and have more control.

Have they? Because the agreement these cities signed is for a $12 million dollar system of the exact SAME type and buildout as the county is getting for the ENTIRE county at $18 million. Someone didn't shop around. At least according to the public records available. Sure, that is for new subscriber radios, consoles and sites, but was all of that needed? Those north county cities already have digital capable subscriber radios and have since their inception. Phase 2 radios needed? Why not just replace them when they die? It's not like these are 15 year old radios held together with tape. Many of them are under 5 years old. They aren't exactly cheap as I am sure you know.

The current county project is for a new system core and associated infrastructure only. Keep the existing digital subscriber radios (all county radios were replaced with phase 1 units over the last decade) and replace as needed over 3-5 years with phase 2.

Become a stakeholder in the new county network and keep your existing perfectly good phase 1 radios like the county is doing.

A more solid plan IMO than buying a new, separate, disparate system essentially paralleling the one the county is building to cover THE SAME AREAS.

Tell me this isn't unnecessary taxation. It would be one thing if the county system being built had inadequate RF coverage, or lacked channel/talkgroup capacity, or used some "proprietary" technology, but that isn't the case. In fact, the URS is essentially a carbon copy of the new county system (minus subscriber radios). That's plain wasteful. Where is the savings? It isn't like they are buying a MotoTRBO or Nexedge system for a fraction of the cost.

They're essentially building a parallel road to one the county is building that will carry the same traffic along the same route.

Why NOT build just ONE road? How are the taxpayers saving anything because they are still gonna play the same game with the same vendor of perpetual upgrades, have to maintain their OWN network core, master sites, prime sites, and all those maintenance fees, upgrade fees, this fee and that fee, except now the taxpayers are paying for TWO systems: the city and the county system.

I personally believe the introduction of ISSI has gotten some users to thinking about how much being on a countywide or regional system is really costing them, then comparing this to what they are getting verses what they really need. The introduction of ISSI could help get some municipalities and possibly even some counties back on track to the point where they are getting what they are paying for and have the coverage they need for regular daily operations, but have the ability to roam to larger coverage areas when needed. Maybe ISSI could provide the best of both worlds by giving agencies the coverage they need the majority of the time while meeting their financial needs and give them the ability for radios to roam as required.

No argument there, for networks that are currently in operation, and new ones being built, this is a good thing. The IGA signed between Cobb county and Forsyth county is a great example of this.

Maybe cities having their own systems and ISSI roaming to county systems isn't such a bad idea after all.

It's not a bad idea for cities to have their own systems if they shop around and get a better price both in initial capital outlay and maintenance costs, but we all know that doesn't happen. The recurring theme seems to be a sole source vendor of choice who now models their public safety radio system after Microsoft's product life cycle.

ASTRO® 25 Lifecycle Management: Keep Your System Up-to-date - YouTube

"A customer needs to look at a P25 Astro system differently than the past"- What do you think this equates to? It means, get ready for a very short life cycle and get ready for more costly forklift upgrades.

Going out and buying a duplicate network core, master sites, prime sites, consoles, etc that are all going to get torn out and replaced in 5-7 years is getting VERY expensive. And what happens when LTE arrives? What then? Two new systems get replaced instead of one? Do taxpayers get to fund that ride too?

It costs alot less if more people are chipping in. Say it isn't so.

If the cities in question were buying only that 2 site conventional repeater and associated a hardware like the university, that is a no-brainer. But they aren't. They are buying the EXACT same product the county is at the SAME time.

Maybe everyone should have shopped around. I think this is the CORE of the problem.

But what I do I know. I don't have a dog in that fight. Just the one footing the bill in a county who loves to spend my money like it grows on trees. Go Braves!

 

[MTS2000des]

The introduction of ISSI could help get some municipalities and possibly even some counties back on track to the point where they are getting what they are paying for and have the coverage they need for regular daily operations, but have the ability to roam to larger coverage areas when needed. Maybe ISSI could provide the best of both worlds by giving agencies the coverage they need the majority of the time while meeting their financial needs and give them the ability for radios to roam as required.

One point regarding ISSI, it still requires agencies to WANT to work together, merely enabling ISSI with no management of resources and coordination of factors like wide area talkgroups, roamer profiles, priority access levels, and provisioning users based on need is a recipe for disaster.

Every system who links via ISSI has to be willing to give something, and gain something, while understanding both the benefits and technical limitations of such.

Without a centralized authority, you lead to chaos.

In the amateur radio world, we have much experience with linking radio networks and have been doing it since the days of dial-up telephone lines by using phone interconnects to create ad-hoc networks of repeater systems across the country.

We also learned early on that the key and first step is to create a technical committee to oversee that technical standards are adhered to and of course the desire to actually be connected and share resources is paramount.

I applaud the North Fulton leadership for creation of the Unified Radio System board by being chartered under state law (HB 562), this is the first step. Working with other agencies who might have the resources at a lower cost and getting shared access is, IMO, a much more wise expenditure of taxpayer funds than blindly building out duplicate networks of the same scale and size that cover the same geographic areas. That is just plain wasteful and capricious squandering of taxpayer money, coming at a time when governments are cutting services to it's citizens and constantly raising taxes. When the next bubble bursts and the taxpayers are faced with the next round of cuts and increase in taxes, they are really going to be annoyed to find out millions of dollars was wasted on what amounts to duplication of services. Those millions could fund those things like specialized units like STEP teams that sat idle on a recent July 4th weekend in one county I know of that had to make cuts. This is also the same county that appears to spend money on a whim on those endless forklift upgrades to it's radio system. Are we really being served when this kind of thing happens?

Great things happen when people all come to the table with something to offer and agree to work together to accomplish the same goals.

 

[SCPD]

Countywide & Regional Radio Systems (cont'd)

What I have learned over the years is by working together with other folks and getting core stakeholders together, resources can be pooled, and everyone benefits and pays less than if everyone strikes out on their own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying agencies shouldn't work together or consider pooling some resources, nor did I say I totally agree with what the North Fulton cities (Alpharetta, Milton, Roswell and Sandy Springs) are doing, but some of what they did makes since. My main goal was to simulate some minds and get people thinking about this topic in a smaller scale.

Have they? Because the agreement these cities signed is for a $12 million dollar system of the exact SAME type and buildout as the county is getting for the ENTIRE county at $18 million.

I can't speak in detail on the Fulton County System or the system the North Fulton cities are putting in because I haven't read the RPPs or other details about what they are putting in, but I would be hard pressed to believe Fulton County is putting in a true countywide system, to include coverage in the North Fulton cities for only $6 million more than the North Fulton cities because the Fulton County needs coverage in downtown Atlanta and in South Fulton County with South County being just as big or bigger than North Fulton County. This is even with the North Fulton cities replacing all of their subscriber radios which I agree with you there probably should have been a more phased in approach by agencies using their Phase 1 radios longer and replacing them over time instead of all at once.

Again, my intent was to get readers of these posts thinking about the concept of systems covering smaller areas, but still be able to work together, have interoperability and do it at a level and cost that makes more since over the lifecycle of the system. When you look at the system the North Fulton cities are putting in it is just as big or bigger then the system Cobb County has.

 

[MTS2000des]

I can't speak in detail on the Fulton County System or the system the North Fulton cities are putting in because I haven't read the RPPs or other details about what they are putting in, but I would be hard pressed to believe Fulton County is putting in a true countywide system, to include coverage in the North Fulton cities for only $6 million more than the North Fulton cities because the Fulton County needs coverage in downtown Atlanta and in South Fulton County with South County being just as big or bigger than North Fulton County.

From the RFPs and responses, Motorola Solutions is adding several sites to provide specified county wide coverage per the original RFP, my error, the county price is $19 million and change, not 18, but here is a link to the relevant documents, including the initial RFP itself, responses, and approved award:

Fulton County Bid Opportunities

The RFP calls for 17 sites, 14 channel phase 2 P25, which is a huge increase compared to the existing analog network, and specified 95 percent total coverage, inbuilding and on street, countywide.

The RFP also includes console replacement, upgrades, and reflashing/programming of all existing county owned radios to support digital operation.

Cannot find the link to the North Fulton URS RFP on the Sandy Springs website, it was up a while back but is gone. I will contact them on Monday and file an open records request and see if I can get a copy of this document and share it here.

So hopefully this sheds some light on why I feel the way I do, the new county network will essentially offer exactly what the north county cities are getting, and then some, including downtown coverage (which was an issue for the county as I am sure you are aware this came to light with the 2005 shooting incident), the URS would only have reliable in-building coverage at the courts, jail, etc through ISSI either on the new county system or the city of Atlanta's DTRS.

You did some great calculations, unlike many folks who make these decisions, you seem to be the only one around here who has a functioning calculator, LOL.

But in this specific case, I think once you run the numbers, you'll agree that remaining on the county network as a subscriber just makes better sense. My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is that these cities were offered to become a stakeholder in the new county for around $3 million but declined because they were not offered "controlling" positions in administrating the system.

Well that makes sense to me, those who are paying the majority of the costs should have majority of the say-so. Instead, they chose to go the path they appear to be going.

When you look at the system the North Fulton cities are putting in it is just as big or bigger then the system Cobb County has.

and that is what concerns me. In Cobb county, we have financed a very expensive system that has inadequate in building coverage, and now are spending $12 million of taxpayers money to migrate to phase 2, which IMO, is a waste of money. This comes at a time when our county police are struggling to keep up with call volume, department morale is at an all time low, and we now face the challenge of a stadium that could negatively impact our quality of life if we don't get a handle on this whimsical spending of money on such pet projects. My employer spent somewhere close to $60,000 on 20 new radios to meet the mandate the county is giving all subscribers. That is a lot of money for radios. I have outfitted entire businesses with a repeater and associated infrastructure and three dozen high tier radios for less than that.

I speak as a lifelong resident, homeowner and taxpayer. Back in 2005, I spoke against the decision to move to P25 phase 1 at the time because I knew what was going to happen not even 7 years later. Forklift upgrades galore. Endless spending of SPLOST money that could have been better spent elsewhere, like hiring more police officers or 911 cal takers and dispatchers.

Had we waited (which we could have, as the existing Smartnet system was functional and still supported until 2009) we could have put out a true open RFP and look at all the options now available for much less money, such as the EF Johnson Atlas P25 system, which, unlike the proprietary flavor of P25 that is Motorola Solutions Astro 25 system, is truly P25 compliant and a much lower cost system:

EFJohnson Technologies | Systems

Or Cassidian Communications CORP25 which, just like EF Johnsons' Atlas 25, is 100 percent true non-proprietary P25:

P25 Land Mobile Radio

The Richardson, TX P25 upgrade that Cassidian did is an example of how a real RFP process and competitive bidding is a win-win scenario for both first responders and taxpayers:

Cassidian Communications and the City of Richardson Celebrate an Industry Milestone

I point to this as a prime example of doing it right. The city saved $5 million dollars by going with them, and still got the cherished "Motorola" subscriber radios, and higher tier ones (APX) versus what Motorola Solutions themselves offered in their RFP response (XTS2500s).

See what happens when one shops around?

And last but not least, Harris IP25, also standards based, true P25 compliant network (same product Floyd county procured):

Harris PSPC

It just boggles my mind that we did not shop around and squandered taxpayer money and are going to do it again, not considering other vendors is a disgrace and IMO, a betrayal of trust to us taxpayers.

I don't want to see the folks in North Fulton get fleeced the way we have time and time again. They worked very hard to gain their "independence" after all.

But like I said, I am not expert. Just the lowly taxpayer with a functioning calculator. I am glad to know at least some of you are on my side.

I think when you run the numbers, in this case, those cities might be better off financially by not buying a duplicate of what is going in right in their backyard.

Sure, they are gonna pay! that is the whole P25 game for ya. Pay, pay pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay and then pay some more.

 

[MTS2000des]

Something to ponder

Why we are on this topic, here is a good recent article on the one vendor who's name seems to keep coming up.

How Motorola came to dominate in emergency telecommunications | Wichita Eagle