Regional dispatch systems (county or otherwise) are a very viable way to go. But each town or city that currently has their own system have their own reasons for choosing which way to go when it comes time for an upgrade, some good, some bad. Until each town or city lists their pros and cons for joining Ct Land Mobile Radio Network (CLMRN) (or staying with an independent system) are known, regional dispatching can not be considered the āgo toā choice out-if-hand. I realize some agencies will simply brush off the question of why they chose a specific system with the comment āBecause we canā. And follow up on the question with āItās what the taxpayers voted forā. Hereās whatās wrong with thatā¦ In most cases the voters didnāt question what was proposed in the budget. They figure their elected officials are on top of any expenditures, and the input they get from their dept heads has to be the way to go. The problem with this is elected officials and dept heads arenāt usually versed in comms systems. They are cops and firefighters who only want assurance on one thing, when they push the āpush-to-talk (PTT) button on the mic, their message gets to where itās supposed to go. To them itās a tool in their toolbox that helps them get the job done. So they rely on their radio contractors to guide them. Contractors are in business to make money for themselves and will sell you their equipment/systems. Yes, they will give you something that works, but is it the only option? In some cases they arenāt telling you everything.
Town and city govts should hire independent expert advisors. They will have the best interests of the town or city at heart because they represent the govts, NOT the people who have been supplying comms systems to them for decades and will sell you a system that may very well be overpriced, certain options unneeded etc. Let the independent experts meet with those companies that submit bids to replace an old outmoded system. They will include the possibility of regional dispatch (in this case CLMRN) with them in any discussion and learn why it may or may not be the way to go, then submit their findings to the heads of the depts involved. But the path to regional dispatch must include the votersā¦ question the expenditures at town/city budget hearings, ask about the possibility of regional dispatch, etc. At the very least the voters will get the idea of regional dispatch on the table for further study at the town/city level.
I believe studies by organizations such as Capitol Region (for one) already have committees exploring the idea, so, itās being looked at from the top endā¦ educating the public to the possibility of regional dispatch as a money savings proposal is what needs to be done from the bottom end.
Govt works slowly. But weāve seen some towns and cities already taking advantage of CLMRN, which is saying āregional dispatchā. And word of mouth will spread among the police and fire chief organizations. (There are other towns such as Avon who have looked at CLMRN but discarded the idea mostly for inadequate area coverage? BUT in Avons case, ONLY after the town had voted to fund a new independent town owned system and learned after the fact an antenna site currently being used in Canton could not be improved by increasing the height of the structure due to the Town of Canton voting down the improvement, I believe because of ascetic reasons? So, there are many reasons why certain towns/cities choose not to jump on to CLMRN.
I believe statewide regional dispatch will become the norm eventually. I also believe I will be long dead and buried by the time it happens!
www.motorolasolutions.com
