Erie County to try for a trunked radio system

[DaveNF2G]

Getting NYSP involved guaranteed a fight over "security" as they prefer to operate on their own and as secretly as possible. Yes, the old VHF system is still in use and wide open, but that is a money issue.

P25 is the only thing the Feds will fund, and regional consortia are the only way the State will fund it, so Erie County doing its own thing internally will have to be paid for internally.

Also, SWN did nice demos, but agencies that switched over to OpenSky (like a county in PA) couldn't get off it fast enough. Imaging investing all the money you have in a new radio system, and then discovering that you made a huge mistake. Can't spend all that money again anytime soon.

 

[ak716]

Imaging investing all the money you have in a new radio system, and then discovering that you made a huge mistake. Can't spend all that money again anytime soon.

Man, applying that to Erie County…. I bet administrators of agencies and local elected officials who invested in incompatible technologies are going to be PISSED when equipment sold to them by specific vendors has to be replaced, again. Remember, administrators of agencies don’t last forever, but the “push” for P25 systems in this country has. I wouldn’t be surprised if those that are going to fill those spots will remember who sold them “incompatible equipment” and choose to have less faith in those vendors, and potentially not do business with them in the future.

Time is only gonna tell how this is going to play out again….

 

[Trbogeek]

First, let's make sure we're talking about the same "system that currently easily outperforms the existing system". Assuming you're referring to SaiaNet, the system you are often commenting about, and which exists in Erie County, that's what I'm going to compare this "issue" to.


The existing systems don't exist because of a multitude of issues. But it doesn't help, at all, when private companies like Saia come in and cause DIRECT interoperability issues, causing everyone to "do their own thing". While I know you're going to say "our system offers interoperability", yeah, it's relying on patches, going from a SaiaNet subscriber back to the Saia site, through whatever patch is set up, and back onto whatever channel that user is trying to communicate with. You'd be lying if you didn't say there were no possible points of failure in that interoperability capability. Cut out the "middle man". Get everyone on the same system, using the same technology, using the same features, using the same towers.

Other systems? Users who migrated from "other systems", we'll use WSPD for an example, left their VHF-Hi conventional analog channel. While I'm not intimately familiar, anyone monitoring could clearly come up with the summation that "something" was failing, as audio quality and coverage keep decreasing over time. So, to an untrained, unaware, and cash-strapped police administrator, they can get won over with "you can get all this for my low, low price". Yeah, they are gonna bite. Especially when their other option is hoping and praying they can get a frequency coordinated and approved, and stand something up for themselves, and drop all the coin needed upfront compared to paying Saia for the length of their service. You full well know, police, fire, and EMS administrators making these decisions are not educated in any way, shape, or form about communications beyond what the salesmen say. NFTA. We'll address that next. NFTA CFR left their aging 800 MHz EDACS system to move to SaiaNet. NFTA PD didn't. NFTA buses didn't. But CFR did. Why? While I'm aware there is a capability to patch their EDACS TGs to a UHF conventional frequency, maybe they saw it to be easier to move to a UHF system, using UHF equipment, to be on at least the same band as agencies they were running mutual aid with, without buying new multiband radios? Maybe it was a "hey, we're replacing the EDACS system eventually, but we don't know with what yet, don't make any big investments?". Maybe it was to "better coordinate" between AMR, a user of SaiaNet? Buffalo State College. Well, they were using NXDN, and well, ALMOST no one in Erie County uses it (yes, I'm aware Hamburg PD is still on it for a little bit longer); it's essentially a disparate technology in Erie County, in the emergency services world. Take all that, and couple it with a perceived need for capacity, with minimal solutions, and yes, they will come, for now, until a better solution exists that offers that.

Eh, that's your opinion. I've been near many users of SaiaNet, and it sounds like they are talking into a tin can. While I'm aware there can be a multitude of factors, it's been pretty consistent.

How's that different from anything right now? EVERY "PSAP console" deployed out in the field right now isn's "approved"? While I'm sure TRBONet consoles aren't approved, I'm fairly confident there are quite a few PSAPs that operate equipment that would be "approved" or could be easily upgraded.

That's a generally misleading statement. Interoperability how? Amongst certain counties? Sure. Internally, within Erie County? No, not when they're all on the same system and same band. Those that have an operational need for multiband capability, or the need to potentially "roam" onto another system, if it's enabled to or capable of, sure. But old man Fire Police Freddy, directing traffic at a fender bender, likely isn't going to need, nor should be issued, said $8,000 radio. Certain county agencies and local agencies do have that need. Look at Marilla Fire. They operate in Erie County, but run mutual aid into Wyoming County. They have an operational need for UHF and VHF-Hi. So, instead of having two radios, if they so chose, they could have one radio. Or, just keep doing what they are doing with their current, capable radios they have anyway!

As I posted earlier:

You'd think that they'd be chomping at the bit, but ya never know!

At the end of the day, and I'm sure you'll disagree with me, that's so wonderful about this country, we can debate this until we're blue in the face, countless agencies depend on and operate using P25, grant-funded equipment. Like it or not, P25 is the flavor of the day, the federal government chose as their "crown jewel". NYS chose the same, just like every other state I'm aware of. Agencies strapped for cash need radios, infrastructure, system enhancements, etc, theoretically should be getting a state or federal grant, which requires that the equipment be P25 compliant. Additionally, certain agencies have an operational need to have those "big knobbed" radios. I think Lt McCarthy and Firefighter Croom would have LOVED to have those when they perished in that basement in 2009. So, say BFD wants to move into digital voice. Now, their "big knob", "$8,000" radios are held back from talking with other agencies directly because you think Erie County should be all on a DMR system? NYSP has a whole assortment of radios out there. Do you think NYSP, which operates on dozens of P25 systems across the state, is going to go back and add or replace all its equipment to save a few dollars to move everything to DMR? So now, what? NYSP units operating in Erie County need to have a DMR radio to talk in Erie County, but a different radio to talk on anything else in the state? What about when federal agencies talk with local agencies? If the local agencies are running DMR, how's OAM's OMAHA going to talk to local law enforcement that it is providing support to, because Air-1 is down again? Yeah, I'm sure CBP and all the other federal agencies would LOVE to have their secure channels patched onto a DMR system. Or, just throw an XPR5550 in the cockpit of the federally owned and operated CBP helicopter because some guy said that DMR is cheaper, better, and they should use that instead in Erie County. Use the analog conventional interop channels, right? I'm sure the feds would go for that! Good thing they don't need any encryption for any of their operations..

You're trying to fight a local battle that is completely the opposite of what NYS and the federal governments plan is. If you want DMR so badly in public safety, start working with your congressmen to get P25 removed as their "chosen one". Until that happens, anyone "not getting with the program" is part of the problem.

NFTA ARFF went with an outside vendor because the 800 EDACS system didn't cover what they needed. NFTA is in the process of upgrading their 800 EDACS to a P25 system, using the same tower sites, but expecting better coverage. What could possibly go wrong with that?

W. Seneca maintains the VHF as a console channel as nothing more than a hailing channel, that today would not likely be used, but would use the County Wide PD UHF analog channel.

P25 phase two (TDMA) doesn't sound near as good as phase one for the obvious reasons, and does sound the same as properly configured DMR III.

TRBOnet is approved and working very well on the DMR system, while the "Administrator approved" consoles on the proposed county trunk system, would have to be fiber/microwave back to PSC, or run on a control station, which makes dispatch just another radio on the system, and just as prone to single points of failure.

As far as secured channels on DMR, outside agencies using DMR, that's the beauty of encryption, you have no idea who is using the system, has been using the system, what channels are integrated, and for what period of time. It's kind of like that concealed carry, you're not supposed to know....

Other than an open county analog channel, the current interoperability between agencies, South of the city, are working well. Many agencies on the same system, with each others TGs in radios as needed. More added to the system monthly, continued interest from new agencies.

The one variable you continue to side step is funding. Many, most, municipalities can't afford to buy high tier radios, expensive console systems, pay for AVL tracking to cell carriers, and still pay the county for access to their system. For those pushing to "own their own" systems, this pretty much is in direct conflict with that debate, and costing much more, for less, than the competitive, currently operating and providing the requested interoperability, with coverage superior to the existing county system. We can debate this all day. You'll be hard pressed to justify any small, even medium sized agency to need a radio that will most likely need VHF, UHF (with P25 phase 2 keys), and 800 (out side counties, NFTA, and NYS putting in several 800 trunk sites in west end of the state, including Buffalo) to be fully interoperable, or will need to bridge services, which you have stated doesn't meet interoperable. It's difficult trying to have it all-ways, unless its not your money, and those same uninformed administrators listen to the guy that plays radio as a hobby, than actually knowing and understanding the real nuts and bolts of the complete picture. The locals and their "radio guys" can't get MDC correct, but you're expecting them to get P25 trunking mastered.

 

[Trbogeek]

Man, applying that to Erie County…. I bet administrators of agencies and local elected officials who invested in incompatible technologies are going to be PISSED when equipment sold to them by specific vendors has to be replaced, again. Remember, administrators of agencies don’t last forever, but the “push” for P25 systems in this country has. I wouldn’t be surprised if those that are going to fill those spots will remember who sold them “incompatible equipment” and choose to have less faith in those vendors, and potentially not do business with them in the future.

Time is only gonna tell how this is going to play out again….

First, going on a county owned, operated, subscription based system isn't a mandate, so those with working radios, that have been working for years, that will have access to those county channels, may very well feel they made the right, smart choice. There is a significant component that says " If it's not broke don't fix it". The end user needs to only ask what feature they are missing, or what event has happened that (assuming all agencies (Fire, DPW, PD, EMS) are on a P25 system) they were not able to communicate on. All cries for interoperability, system cross patching, encryption, trunking, and the last big event in Buffalo (Tops market) all were on a UHF simplex channel.

 

[ak716]

First, going on a county owned, operated, subscription based system isn't a mandate, so those with working radios, that have been working for years, that will have access to those county channels, may very well feel they made the right, smart choice.

No one ever said it was a mandate.

the last big event in Buffalo (Tops market) all were on a UHF simplex channel.

Tops Shooting audio clips..... or a more compressed version BFD operating on their UHF REPEATED analog channel, and BPD operating on their UHF REPEATED P25 channel..... but they were "all on a UHF simplex channel".... and while the incident was big, notable and horrible, to the best of my knowledge, interoperability wasn't a failure there, and generally not something that was needed.

There have been many events throughout the county and region over the years which have had interoperability shortcomings due to incompatible technologies, but you have an agenda you're pushing contrary to what many muncicpalities, the county, state and federal government are attempting to achieve.

 

[Trbogeek]

No one ever said it was a mandate.


Tops Shooting audio clips..... or a more compressed version BFD operating on their UHF REPEATED analog channel, and BPD operating on their UHF REPEATED P25 channel..... but they were "all on a UHF simplex channel".... and while the incident was big, notable and horrible, to the best of my knowledge, interoperability wasn't a failure there, and generally not something that was needed.

There have been many events throughout the county and region over the years which have had interoperability shortcomings due to incompatible technologies, but you have an agenda you're pushing contrary to what many muncicpalities, the county, state and federal government are attempting to achieve.

To your point, if the county, state, were looking for interoperability, they wouldn't be building two incomparable systems, requiring the various municipalities to buy (at tax payers expense) tri-band radios (when considering the many agencies still on VHF). I'm pushing an existing, tested, and proven, system, that offers everything the very expensive P25 system offers at a fraction of the cost, with no negative impact to public safety, and exercising prudent tax payer spending. Maybe if those that want to play radio tech, had to buy their radios, they would think twice. Things change when the money comes out of your pocket instead of spending tax dollars on a narrative, over function.

 

[DeoVindice]

To your point, if the county, state, were looking for interoperability, they wouldn't be building two incomparable systems, requiring the various municipalities to buy (at tax payers expense) tri-band radios (when considering the many agencies still on VHF). I'm pushing an existing, tested, and proven, system, that offers everything the very expensive P25 system offers at a fraction of the cost, with no negative impact to public safety, and exercising prudent tax payer spending. Maybe if those that want to play radio tech, had to buy their radios, they would think twice. Things change when the money comes out of your pocket instead of spending tax dollars on a narrative, over function.

We've had this discussion before. TRBO subscribers don't even fare well in heavy industrial use and there are multiple ergonomic shortcomings that result in unsafe situations. I wouldn't even dream of trying to deploy them for IDLH.

Four or five years of fighting XPRs resulted in deploying P25 conventional for mine operations. I've purchased multiple new P25 radios out of my own wallet and would do it again. At least the R7 is a bit better.

 

[Trbogeek]

We've had this discussion before. TRBO subscribers don't even fare well in heavy industrial use and there are multiple ergonomic shortcomings that result in unsafe situations. I wouldn't even dream of trying to deploy them for IDLH.

Four or five years of fighting XPRs resulted in deploying P25 conventional for mine operations. I've purchased multiple new P25 radios out of my own wallet and would do it again. At least the R7 is a bit better.

Fortunately we don't have any public safety that needs to be in an underground mine environment. There are currently a dozen above ground mining sites on the system, with over 125 XPR7550 radios used daily, for over 10 yrs.

 

[mmckenna]

I'm pushing an existing, tested, and proven, system, that offers everything the very expensive P25 system offers at a fraction of the cost, with no negative impact to public safety, and exercising prudent tax payer spending. Maybe if those that want to play radio tech, had to buy their radios, they would think twice. Things change when the money comes out of your pocket instead of spending tax dollars on a narrative, over function.

DMR could certainly work, no argument there. Kenwood, EF Johnson and Tait already have radios on the market that will do DMR and P25 for those that need interoperability.

There's a couple of things to consider, though:

A lot of agencies rely on federal grant funding for radios/systems. Feds won't give grant funding on radios unless they are P25 capable. While the feds could change that, it goes against the original plan to enhance interoperability. To figure out the impacts of that would take more than a hobby radio site discussion. When it comes down to it, federal grant funding is important.

There is a lot more suitable P25 subscriber units on the market than there are suitable DMR radios. And by suitable, I mean something better than a CCR that meets the requirements for fire fighting and will stand up to every day use by police officers. Some of the higher tier subscriber units do pretty well, though.

Interfacing between systems and using ISSI is more available on P25 systems.

I haven't seen a public safety grade DMR subscriber radio that supports LTE yet. That is becoming more and more necessary for some agencies. Cobbled together LTE/DMR systems need not apply.

Many of these large systems do have federal users on them. Feds carry P25 radios. Replacing federal radios to support DMR systems would take a long time and cost taxpayers a lot more money.

Radios roaming between P25 systems is a thing, too. Locally, we have radios that can roam between local and state systems. I don't think EFJ, Kenwood or Tait has mastered that level of trunked system roaming yet. Maybe someday...

Probably a better way to look at this is to consider the user base.
Garbage truck drivers don't need to interoperate with PD or Fire. Small conventional systems could probably fill the role there, but a lot of municipalities don't want to support multiple systems. There's cost in staffing/training/spares stocking, etc. There are pretty good arguments that would say that one common system makes more sense and ultimately saves money. But when it comes down to it, the marketing that says PD needs to talk to the guy driving the lawnmower at the park directly is flawed.

The goal behind P25 was for adoption of a common solution for public safety users. The idea that everyone using the same thing would drive down costs. That never materialized due to greed and other reasons. That's been a major issues and where DMR is winning in some markets.

Going through all this locally right now, and it's not an easy 'slam dunk' decision. There's more involved than just the initial purchase price. Not uncommon for these systems to be designed around 15+ year lifespans, and some are nervous about buying into the nonstandard solutions just to save money initially.