It is my current belief that there is no place for trunked or even conventional, digital radio systems in Public Safety. TRS systems are fine day-to-day but when the rubber meets the road they often fail those critical users when in life threatening situations. The amount of technical overheard needed to run a trunked system makes them unacceptable in my view. Some instances have been documented in this thread that tends to support this assertion.
Cops and FF train for the exception not for the day to day occurrence. Why do we as the public allow the lives of our most precious public servants to be place in harms way not engineered/built to the same same standard.
1. Trunked radio systems primary and one true focus is the efficient utilization of radio spectrum, not performance. Performance is something that is considered secondary to system loading considerations/configuration for efficiency. Because many people involved in public safety radio are more dispatcher/manager than engineer/cop they are not technical folk and do not understand how a radio system works beyond the console positions in their comm center. Allowing things like link budgets for mobile not portable coverage to pass, trusting but not verifying what the sales rep says, and not truly even really understanding what the FCC is going to require and when are all parts of the larger sin.
2.Paragdigm shift to Revenue Recapture from performance: TRS are a system managers/owners dream, not only does it allow control over your system, it allows you to efficiently manage and CHARGE users. It also allows for a new mini-bureaucracy to be put into place ensuring job security. In almost all large settings that i have sutdied, where multi-agency users are present on the system, it becomes a business first and a 'service' second. It is usually sold to the Board of Supervisors/County Commissioners/whoever in just this manner over coffee and dough nuts at non-meetings you and I as the public are never invited to.The focus becomes 'cost-recovery and revenue generation' for the management who are now under pressure to show fiscal performance not performance for the cop or firefighter.
2.No trunked system has yet or likely will ever be able to perform as well as a well engineered, solidly constructed conventional, analog radio system. Trunked radio systems are fine for Public Works Crews, Garbage Trucks and City Gardeners but the shortcomings of the system do not guard the safety of the Cop or Firefighter whose life relies on the invisible beam of lights performance. It is my personal experience that it is not a good feeling to be rolling around in a traffic lane in the middle of the day with a man with a gun and get a system busy. There is an episode of Cops that I have Tivo'ed that show just that same thing happening to a Florida deputy. Nice to know that I am not alone at least. If one watches you can see the poor guys stress level go thru the roof. He is alone (with a camera crew) in a backyard, in the dark, and having some trouble gaining compliance from the guy he is on the ground with. That $37.50 per radio his agency spent for radio coverage on that trunked system that month was not well spent. On a well engineered, conventional system perhaps he would have stood a chance, same perhaps with Kyle.
3. Digital is about efficiency not performance, and yes people can still scan you. you cannot have a portable on and use a car radio without that audio twist/echo.Not a big deal but turning that radio on and waiting for it to boot up is a delay I do not like and puts others at risk. Add a siren or a loud engine like a firetruck and the whole thing becomes an encoded, signal noise level mess to understand for field units. Many upper/mid- management folks that I have talked to do not even understand what P25 really is much less the fact that it is not encryption technology. The only understand that if they are not digital they are in the 'dark ages' of radio and need to upgrade 'to stay current'. True victims of marketing and notice there is no thought of performance in that thinking.
4. Interoperability is not a real world concern. It sounds good but in reality it is not practiced particularly by LE in the real world. In my years in LE I have often wondered what would happen if all LE could play together a like firemen.Firemen need help, they call the next department over pursuant to a state,county or regional mutual aid agreement and wa-la! they have more firemen. Those firemen have the same goals, training, and most of the organizational culture of the department they are now assisting.
Their command staff have no compunction about putting their people in the charge of the command staff of the the other department for a short amount of time-pursuant to the agreement. Etc. and so on. The problem is, Cops do not work like that for the most part. their command structure is para-military and the structure DOES mind when it comes to transferring the command and control of their troops to another department even pursuant to an agreement for even a few minutes. Training, policy & practice, overall goals, and experience level varies widely from department to department and even more on an individual level. Liability is much bigger concern for PD than for Fire. The prime difference in my is cops are viewed as 'causing' the problem in whatever approach they use and are more prone to be 'blamed' versus Fire who is viewed as solving a problem 'heroes having done the best they could' at a venue to which they were summoned. Law enforcement is much more an individual craft versus the outright teamwork concept of Fire. No less brave or committed to service just a different set of problems, command structure, and different liability.
I have been a user in an area where a countywide type II system has been in place for several years owned by the sheriff. A few agencies joined after a heavy political sales job. Immediately, these agencies realized that what they had before was superior to the TRS but the cost of rebuilding had motivated them to leave their T-band systems in the first place. With their cars all transitioned to the new system and their old equipment de-installed, it would not be easy to turn back and it was impossible to turn back politically- to admit a mistake was made would be suicide in such an environment. So, put on a happy face, smile and lie lie lie. If someone asks how the new radio system is working out, lie to them and promise the Chief and vast (and free) improvements. Soon the chief will leave as they all do, and no one will be able to recall the difference and perhaps you can make it to retirement before anyone figures it all out. In the interim, everyone 'hears' how great the new super system is. The are in the dark ages and need to 'upgrade' to what department X has. The /\/\ rep is courting them with visions of political glory over scotch at 'casual' meetings that take place at half-time at pro-football games in private boxes at the stadium.
Meanwhile, more agencies join the system, no one really sees that great performance but hey "eveyone else is on it' so now it is a matter of interoperabily. No matter the fact that we can talk to other agencies on the system but we never do. We dont really know how, have never had any training and most importantly, the watch commander would never completely cooperate with department X for reasons that no one really knows of.
While having been in many situations where it would have been nice to talk to the venue agency it was not an absolute necessity. When the venue agency shows up, they take over the perimeter and conduct the search with limited involvement from the originating agency. They know the geography, they know each other and they are under the command of a single command structure. Would it be nice to have a channel to switch to where my UHF radio would work with their 800mhz EDACS radio? Sure it would. Is it necessary? Nope. Is it worth the expense of millions of dollars to purchase a system that will put system efficiency first, system performance second and will present new and likely insurmountable factors to allowing that Cop or FF to communicate when their life is on the line- definitely not.
If you can build a system that works in the exception and that one can have some confidence in, along with a regional policy on how it will be used, and commitment to the practice of using it consistent with that policy then you have the beginnings of true interoperability. Otherwise you have a radio system with unused, silent channels or talk groups.
Well. that is my overheated .02 cents on the matter, a bit OT but the nexus is still there. If I put you to sleep- thanks for reading this.
