Thanks for the info. I totally agree about interop. That's all every news story for the past 3 years has talked about. The concern about agencies not being able to talk to each other began with the Albion tornado in 1985. Now they finally have a chance to fix it, and they are recreating the same problems? We'll just have to see how it all plays out.......
Erie County P25 System
- Thread starter MarkPalmer
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the info. I totally agree about interop. That's all every news story for the past 3 years has talked about. The concern about agencies not being able to talk to each other began with the Albion tornado in 1985. Now they finally have a chance to fix it, and they are recreating the same problems? We'll just have to see how it all plays out.......
Yeah, you're right, it won't really be any different than it is now - except that everyone will be on the same band. Like you said, we will have to see how it plays out. I'm sure changes will happen once the system goes live and they get feedback from first responders. As always, I'll provide updates as I receive them. Unfortunately, I cannot help out on the scanner side of things as I don't have a digital trunked scanner, just my ham radio.
One of the guys I work with, also works at one of the fire departments up there. He told me about 6 months ago that they already have all the new radios. They just need cut over to the new system.
Yeah, a lot of agencies who were already on UHF got the radios deployed early to them and have been using them on the conventional analog frequencies, and just waiting for the system to go live to cut over just like you said. Some contacts of mine are just now getting the radios for their agencies, although they are in the rural areas of the County and were using VHF Low Band, so they wouldn't of been able to use the radios then. I assume this is why some of the agencies are just now starting to see the radios.
The concept of interoperability does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets to talk on every talkgroup/channel. That is often counterproductive, in fact. It simply means that the system as a whole provides a single common platform that all users/agencies can operate on, allowing for common talkgroups that everyone has access to. Believe me, there are very few times when a fire chief needs to talk directly to the cop on scene, or vice versa. Dispatchers exist for good reason, one of which is to coordinate radio traffic between agencies so that it's not a free for all.
I understand that.
As such being said, why dump millions into a system to have the same thing that already exists now? The only difference being new radios all on on the same band, on a P25 digital trunked system. The whole point for the new system was interop. Going by what you believe interop is, that's what we have now. Sure, maybe not everyone is on the same band, but the dispatchers can patch frequencies together creating in a sense, interop. Not arguing with you, but sometimes facts are just that: facts.
If you really want my opinion, I feel this system was built around politics. There are much simpler ways to create an interop system. True interop is analog. Buying into a P25 contract that is locked with only one specific vendor for twenty years isn't my idea of interop either. Nor is creating a system that the surrounding agencies can't easily access during an emergency.
Crawford County did it the right way. Everything is UHF analog. True interoperability. These P25 systems in my own personal opinion is just money being thrown down the drain. I don't believe trunking was ever intended for mission-critical, life safety situations that is public safety.
As such being said, why dump millions into a system to have the same thing that already exists now? The only difference being new radios all on on the same band, on a P25 digital trunked system. The whole point for the new system was interop. Going by what you believe interop is, that's what we have now. Sure, maybe not everyone is on the same band, but the dispatchers can patch frequencies together creating in a sense, interop. Not arguing with you, but sometimes facts are just that: facts.
If you really want my opinion, I feel this system was built around politics. There are much simpler ways to create an interop system. True interop is analog. Buying into a P25 contract that is locked with only one specific vendor for twenty years isn't my idea of interop either. Nor is creating a system that the surrounding agencies can't easily access during an emergency.
Crawford County did it the right way. Everything is UHF analog. True interoperability. These P25 systems in my own personal opinion is just money being thrown down the drain. I don't believe trunking was ever intended for mission-critical, life safety situations that is public safety.
Last edited:
That's a bit of a stretch to go that far. A properly designed, constructed, and maintained P25 system will be extremely reliable, and will have no issue supporting mission critical public safety. I can personally attest to a 12-subsite simulcast P25 TDMA countywide system that has been on the air for nearly 6 years without a single failure. That system took agencies that were spread out over low band, VHF, and UHF and got them all onto a single platform, with common talkgroups. It has been a huge improvement from how things used to be done. Yes, it means that it's not as easy for out-of-county mutual aid/interop, but those challenges can be and have been overcome.
Let's not forget that it's most of the same hardware being used regardless of whether it's a network of separate UHF repeaters, or a trunked UHF system. Although it may be different manufacturers, there isn't going to be much difference between the UHF repeaters that Crawford is using vs what Erie is using. Digital is not necessarily evil, as some like to claim it is. Yes, it's expensive, that's for sure, but it's not all that fundamentally different. With a trunked system you simply have a controller directing the radios on which repeater/frequency to use. Obviously trunking is much more efficient than individual analog repeaters, especially if the system features simulcast cells. Erie is able to support many more users simultaneously with half or less the frequencies Crawford needs. In a heavily populated area like the NYC metro area, where available spectrum is at a premium, trunking makes a huge difference when it comes to making every frequency count.
I'm not opposed to analog and KISS, but it's not as if access to the analog nationwide interop channels on all bands suddenly disappears if you build out a trunked system. The subscriber radios are certainly capable of analog operation, and as you said, a dispatch center can patch different bands together if necessary.
In any event, we're veering off topic, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion. I wish you all well in Erie with the new system, those who actually use it and those who will be listening to it (assuming some of the talkgroups aren't strapped secure).
Here's the latest update I just got from the 911 Director. I asked for a testing schedule, but this is all I got:
"As of Friday, the new radio system is expected to be completed by 1Q2019, with
the transition of users.
However, until the system has been successfully tested and all users trained in
the operations of the new radio system, we will not define the actual transition
or go live date. It’s important that all public safety users, county
officials, etc. are confident in the overall performance and operation of the
new radio system prior to cutover.
As we progress towards the transition, I will keep everyone informed on the
status including the cutover plan to our new radio system."
"As of Friday, the new radio system is expected to be completed by 1Q2019, with
the transition of users.
However, until the system has been successfully tested and all users trained in
the operations of the new radio system, we will not define the actual transition
or go live date. It’s important that all public safety users, county
officials, etc. are confident in the overall performance and operation of the
new radio system prior to cutover.
As we progress towards the transition, I will keep everyone informed on the
status including the cutover plan to our new radio system."
No antennas on Lake City Site tower , probably awaiting warm weather whenever that arrives. probably April?
That's amazing about Lake City. They've been working on the towers since last spring! Kathy Dahlkemper was on the news yesterday and said the system would be operational in a "few weeks". She also said they were "burning it in now". I would think that would entail testing, but I've still not heard a peep on my scanner. She said the plan was to activate the city agencies first, and the whole county would be up in 72 hours. I wonder if the developers are telling her the real story, or just what they want her to tell the public?
Consider the source. When has the County ever provided accurate information about this project?
It's slang for turning on the equipment and letting it "burn in" for a while to make sure everything operates correctly and doesn't fail within hours of being turned on.
Went to Lake City Tower site today and see some antennas on tower. oh boy! Don't know if they will have antenna configuration like Fairview Site, if so they have a few more antennas to go!
I looked at both sites on Sunday and saw the UHF antenna at Lake City but no microwave antennas. Did you notice that one of the station 53 UHF antennas has been twisted by the wind?
Didn.t take a good look at top antennas but wouldn't be surprised with all the wind we had recently! They hurried on all these installations so will probably have to do some more work retightening things up when wx gets better.
Be patient. They are certainly not going to do any coverage testing without foliage, so March 31st is probably overly optimistic. They may start testing by that point, but I can't imagine them doing a coverage test and accepting the system before the trees are full of leaves.
- Status
Similar threads
