Interoperability

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,368
Location
Colorado
Well interop issues are going to raise there ugly head once again, just like after columbine.

Who else was listening this afternoon?

Park (VHF) first on scene, Jeffco Deputies and Swat soon followed (DTRS) no direct comms between the two, then Clear Creek arrived (VHF) with a few DTRS portables, CSP (DTRS) some attempts were made to use Mac channels and iCall and Gold interagency were tried but all were unsuccessful and mostly unreadable.

Then Denver command van arrives onscene, the true DTR experts right? and things continued to go down hill.

Believe the entry team was able to use itac5 pretty successfully.

But in the end believe Jeffco stayed on there primary radio system and Park stayed on theres.

Then the issue of nextels, no coverage down there but good DTR from the Bailey tower so talk about command officers without there ptt button close by. And lots began to be aired on DTR in the open that probably should not have.

Jim<
 
Last edited:

Scan-Denver

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,547
Location
Denver, CO - USA
After all the talk about this after the Columbine incident, we still don't have it right.

How many tragic incidents need to take place before we get it right ?
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
I have to wonder if part of the problem is waiting for the comm. van to arrive... Perhaps if permanant patches were always in place for neighboring counties/agencies and CSP... And, the feds will pay for the radios if they're going to be used for interop, right?
 

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,368
Location
Colorado
gcheno said:
I have to wonder if part of the problem is waiting for the comm. van to arrive... Perhaps if permanant patches were always in place for neighboring counties/agencies and CSP... And, the feds will pay for the radios if they're going to be used for interop, right?
Shoot the feds just gave Lafayette FD almost a million for "staffing".

Jim<
 

firescannerbob

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
1,338
Location
Colorado
With no mandate (and of course, funding) for everyone to join the DTRS, you will have these problems forever. When Denver and Aurora buy competing systems (which, IMHO is worse than agencies sticking with VHF/UHF), what message does that send to the rest of the state?
Folks in the major metro areas forget that most of the counties in this state are sparsely populated and with very small budgets. Why buy a $3200 digital portable, when you can buy 4 analog radios that probably work better in the mountains anyways? Money doesn't grow on trees, a lesson that the Denver metro area doesn't seem to get.
 

k0pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
431
Location
Centennial Colorado
firescannerbob said:
When Denver and Aurora buy competing systems (which, IMHO is worse than agencies sticking with VHF/UHF), what message does that send to the rest of the state? Money doesn't grow on trees, a lesson that the Denver metro area doesn't seem to get.
in my opinion, Denver, Aurora, Lakewood, Westy and Arvada have the better system when it comes to trunking. Aurora just needs to turn off the provoice for everything but covert comms. Besides, if all of the above mentioned agencies were to dump their systems and say "OK dtrs, we want on your system now, the dtrs system could in no way handle the amount of comms that these 5 agencies can produce. There is no way. Watch denver alone on a busy evening. They are using all 24 freqs at once a high percentage of time. Show me where the state could install and upkeep a apco 25 system that could handle the traffic demand that is placed on it now as well as all 5 of these department. I don't believe they could do it with the number of freqs that they have available and that could be installed in the metro area. It appears to me that El paso county has not "got it yet" either. Aren't they the ones that received the grant or whatever it was sometime ago to update the system to p25 9600 baud and I was informed "join" the dtrs. That has happened, so where is the inter op there? There is a tiny bit for sure as long as the helping agencies are also part of el paso county and are using the el paso system. What about csp and douglas which would be the first agencies to send help to el paso/springs? Sure they could put in el paso's system in their radios to provide interop or use the itacs channels. But you can't expect arapahoe and everyone else to program a zone dedicated to el paso since they do not wish to join the dtrs.

So its not just the metro area here that is against dtrs. And before someone says it. Yes I know that El Paso system when updated will be versions ahead of the dtrs and so it still will not work.. That is bull. If el paso truely wants interop and the state wants el paso on the system along with all their existing towers, they would tell moto to make it work no matter what. El paso in my opinion doesn't wish to be on dtrs. But that is just my thoughts.
 

cstockmyer

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
1,414
OK so DTRS system was plan A. What's Plan B? There has to be a system out there that makes it so in a incident like we had today, all LE can talk to each other other then sending runners back and forth. I know it's all about money, so how much is an first responders life worth? Because either you by the system, or you loose someone due to the problem.
 
Last edited:

firescannerbob

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
1,338
Location
Colorado
Well David, you don't have your facts right when it comes to El Paso County. Your "thoughts"" are specious, at best
The El Paso County back bone was built long before the DTRS got it's foot hold. The system is currently P16 because it started out as an analog only system for the utilities division, that was hybrid'd to accomodate digital and public safety. When that happened, the DTRS presence here was minimal, and not suitable four the amount of traffic here. Since then the DTRS built-up...AFTER the system here was already up and runnig. If you want to play "chicken or egg", go ahead.
El Paso County is NOT against DTRS. It will, by the end of the year, be compatible with it, and after re-banding (projected for the spring) will probably be assimilated into the DTRS...or maybe not. For the same reasons you point out that the DTRS couldn't accomodate Denver and Aurora, the same could be said for El Paso County. The difference, however, is that the El Paso system WILL be interoperable, something that Denver and Aurora won't be. Couldn't Denver and Aurora have built separate Moto P25 systems? Nope, they went completely into left field.
As for the different versions of the firmware, and your arguement that the El Paso County system "force" Moto to make it compatible, well, that sounds like a real clueless statement, and I expected better than that from you.
 

k0pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
431
Location
Centennial Colorado
Bob, my final statement was not a clueless statement. It was in fact a statement that I knew could not be completed due to the strength of moto. The statement was basically to mean, once you throw all of the money that the state and el paso/springs has into a system, then moto should be willing to make them compatible version wise if in fact the agencies wish it to be. I know all about all the politics that are involved in actually making that happen.

And yes you are right in your statements concerning the fact that el paso's system was built long before the dtrs. I agree with that and never meant to mean that it wasn't in fact that way. I was just responding to your comment about why denver and aurora are basically the ones holding up interop here in the denver area. And my point about el paso systems is that they are holding up the inter op down in that area to a point when it comes to the dtrs system. And once again I know that there are lots of constraints that play into this. It was my understanding that el paso had gone ahead and upgraded to p25 to a point. Maybe they haven't I don't know that much about the system and my comments were made off information that I have gathered from many different areas and sources regarding their upgrade status and sked.
 

n0doz

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
705
Location
Metro PHX AZ
Bob:
Let's get one thing straight. Denver was on EDACS long before the state went with Moto/DTRS. About 10 years, in fact. So this time it ain't us in Denver, it's, well, almost everyone else.
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
jimmnn said:
Then Denver command van arrives onscene, the true DTR experts right? and things continued to go down hill.
So, Jim, do you think this was more a matter of "operator error", as opposed to equipment failure? I ask because our SO helped us with an event a couple months ago, and their ACU-1000 (http://www.jps.com/index.asp?node=88) worked perfectly. Of course, that was just a VHF/UHF patch, but I don't see why adding other radios would affect things that much.
 

Moosemedic

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 28, 2003
Messages
216
Location
Denver
FERN?
NLEC?
CLEER?
HEAR?

Or is that just too obvious for the way interoperability once WORKED?
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
Moosemedic said:
FERN?
NLEC?
CLEER?
HEAR?

Does anybody else remember State 3? That got a lot of use way back when too. And, like you said, it worked...

An interesting sidebar: I was told recently that "federal grants for radios require that they include FERN".
 

Thayne

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,144
They are going to have a roll call on Metro Net at 9:45 AM (10 minutes from now) to check audio levels on Metro Net. Lets see if CSP can turn down the dispatchers :)
 

Thayne

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,144
What a flop that was--less than half the agencies even bothered to answer.

Methinks interopability (or lack of it) has more to do with human nature than technology.
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
Thayne said:
Methinks interopability (or lack of it) has more to do with human nature than technology.
True. It doesn't matter how many useful tools you have if you don't know how-- or are unwilling to use them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top