Las Vegas OpenSky?

[N_Jay]

how do you know what radios there going with?

OPENSKY radios. :roll:

is there anyway to buy a opensky radio and program in the control frequencies? just to monitor?

No and NO

 

[SCPD]

Yes I hear you on that as I do also but, rumor has it that the SNACC system will be going digital which means they too can go off the air also ? We'll all have to wait this out ?

I doubt the SNACC system will change any time soon. Las Vegas City and Clark County have no money to do anything these days. A slight maybe if the Feds kick in some bucks, i doubt it.

 

[Dick33]

Good point there BCFlash. I think the SNACC system was bought and paid for up front with Homeland Security money or part of. They are still working on the system so who knows whats left to do ? But you are right about the locals pocket books.

 

[mdickerson17]

OPENSKY radios. :roll:

No and NO

obviously opensky radios but im sure there are different model radios and its not entirely impossible to get a radio and listen in as explained above, just very incredibly difficult!

 

[N_Jay]

obviously opensky radios but im sure there are different model radios and its not entirely impossible to get a radio and listen in as explained above, just very incredibly difficult!

ALL OpenSky radios work essentially the same.
ALL OpenSky radios are able to be disabled.

ALL Open sky radios require to be logged into the system to operate on it.

OpenSky ONLY assigns traffic to logged on radios.

NO you can not program a OpenSky radio just to listen.

 

[mbart]

Some LVMPD already using OpenSky?

As I was going to bed early this morning (about 2:10 am on 02/19) I heard a broadcast across at least two vhf channels to the effect that all K9 units on the channel should use their analog radios not their OpenSky radios as there was trouble on the OpenSky system.

 

[N_Jay]

Not uncommon for a system still being optimized.

 

[mdickerson17]

Not uncommon for a system still being optimized.

Yet at the same time its almost expected for this system!

 

[N_Jay]

Yet at the same time its almost expected for this system!

All depends on what you mean by expected.

I would say it is expected of any system during optimization.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that OpenSky has not gone through some rough start-ups (To put it mildly), but a lot of people here seem to use any excuse to bash each and every system at each and every chance.

I would bet you that there is not a sizable trunk system installed in the last 10 years that did not have start up issues.

 

[mdickerson17]

All depends on what you mean by expected.

I would say it is expected of any system during optimization.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that OpenSky has not gone through some rough start-ups (To put it mildly), but a lot of people here seem to use any excuse to bash each and every system at each and every chance.

I would bet you that there is not a sizable trunk system installed in the last 10 years that did not have start up issues.

Its not that people bash the system its just that this system has had more than its share of problems (and you put it VERY mildly). Start up problems are common but this system has failed so many times! Honestly I truly like what this system has to offer, specifically to officer safety but the fact that it keeps having problems leaves officers at risk. If they could use the system without worry id be all for it but the fact is they cant! Sorry but thats just my opinion.

 

[N_Jay]

But the comment was about the LV system in particular being shut down while it is still in testing and optimisation.

I bet you would have found the same in early Smartnet system, early P25 systems, early EDACS systems, etc. Should continued deployment of those also been abandoned?

 

[RayAir]

But the comment was about the LV system in particular being shut down while it is still in testing and optimisation.

I bet you would have found the same in early Smartnet system, early P25 systems, early EDACS systems, etc. Should continued deployment of those also been abandoned?

The words "Trouble" and "Problems" are synonymous with Open Sky. And you can't compare Open Sky to SmartNet, P25, or EDACS, because Open Sky has never made it to the successful stage. What, it's been 6-8 yrs(depending on which O/S system) of trying to get it to work! It's already becoming OBSOLETE and it still hasn't been successfully implemented (except for a couple small scale commercial applications).

They should have chosen a PROVEN public safety grade platform like P25 or EDACS. Hell, even go Pro Voice or encrypted if you don't want people to listen. At least the system will work and your department won't have to be a guinea pig.

That said. I wouldn't expect you to have anything but praise for Open Sky since you are an RF consultant that deals with RF Harris, your paymaster.

Intercepted exchange about 2 cops talking about upcoming switch to O/S:

Ofc1 : Fun night at work, but when will people realize that they can't out run a Motorola Radio, good job to my partners!

Ofc2: Dude get it right its not a Motorola... its a Tyco. you remember the company that made your race track and train track as a kid.

Ofc2: Oh wait you're on west I don't think you've got the new top of the line equipment yet. Wait till you see but not hear the new radios.

Ofc1: ya Dave I have already heard.....

 

[N_Jay]

The words "Trouble" and "Problems" are synonymous with Open Sky. And you can't compare Open Sky to SmartNet, P25, or EDACS, because Open Sky has never made it to the successful stage.

Maybe you need to double check your facts. But that aside, my post is not concerning the general state of teh OpenSky systems taht have been implemented.
It was specifically about teh illogic of critisizing teh LV system (or any system) for having disruptions in opperation during optimization and testing.

They should have chosen a PROVEN public safety grade platform like P25 or EDACS. Hell, even go Pro Voice or encrypted if you don't want people to listen. At least the system will work and your department won't have to be a guinea pig.

That all sounds wonderful on paper, but remember, at one time each of these systems was "new and untested" also.
So what would have been your sage advice then?
And where would we be if everyone started adopting your though process in the 1930's with AM low-band?

That said. I wouldn't expect you to have anything but praise for Open Sky since you are an RF consultant that deals with RF Harris, your paymaster.

And here is where you go so far off the deep end that you, yet again prove to all how little you know and how quickly you jump to incorrect conclusions.

Of course you are so self-deluded that you can't even separate what you know from what you (incorrectly) assume.

 

[RayAir]

Maybe you need to double check your facts. But that aside, my post is not concerning the general state of teh OpenSky systems taht have been implemented.
It was specifically about teh illogic of critisizing teh LV system (or any system) for having disruptions in opperation during optimization and testing.


That all sounds wonderful on paper, but remember, at one time each of these systems was "new and untested" also.
So what would have been your sage advice then?
And where would we be if everyone started adopting your though process in the 1930's with AM low-band?


And here is where you go so far off the deep end that you, yet again prove to all how little you know and how quickly you jump to incorrect conclusions.

Of course you are so self-deluded that you can't even separate what you know from what you (incorrectly) assume.

Those are some very interesting and strikingly ignorant observations on your part. I don't recall it taking over eight years to get a SmartNet system somewhat working. They spent eight years dickin around with O/S here and it still doesn't work right.I don't think EDACS took eight years to get up and running from the day construction of a system began. It's almost like me giving you a cell phone and saying the system will be up and running in two years. And here it is EIGHT years later and your phone finally works, but is plagued with a plethora of technical problems. I guess that is acceptable service to you? Oh well, I can go on and on, but you know what they say- "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". I tried to educate you.

I hope they can get the system working, but since it is Open Sky, I doubt they will.

P.S- Type slower; you did a lot of "teh" and "taht".

 

[crazynova]

LVMPD isn't calling it's system OpenSky, but rather DesertSky now. I don't know anything about the technicals or how the system has a lot of problems, but to be honest, I haven't heard anyone who is using the new MACOM radios complain yet. I know that the system also is running MDT's in the cars. From what I've heard, they are adding a few mountain top repeated sites for the new system.

 

[crazynova]

For anyone who cares, I found this article in online through a quick google search. I was published in the LVPPA newsletter in October 2009.

Last week I visited the Radio Systems Bureau (RSB) and spoke with two of the people who are heading up the LVMPD’s shift from the current analog radio system to the digital, data-based radio system called OpenSky. Captain Herb Baker and Officer Michael Barnbeck comprise the leadership that is taking LVMPD to the digital age in radio communications. There are two other key personnel in the RSB that are helping make the digital radio system a reality. Randy Rounds is the Lead Technician and has been on the ground floor of this project since the inception and brings a wealth of knowledge on digital radio systems. Jeff Yeagley is the Radio Shop Manager and will be the one to continue to maintain the digital system once it is up and fully functional. I asked several questions about the new system, and here are the answers they provided.

Q: Why was there a need to change the current radio system to a digital system?
A: Our current analog system has reached its end life. LVMPD no longer has the ability to add radio channels to our current system. If we opened a new area command today, we would have to take a tactical channel away in order to give them communication. The federal government has also mandated that first responders move to a public-safety spectrum in the 700 to 800 MHz range for better commonality and disaster coordination with other local, state and federal agencies. A digital system offers better radio coverage and better building penetration along with the scalability the Department needs for the future. Additionally, OpenSky can do Over The Air Programming (OTAP), which means that upgrading or changing the radio codes can be done without the officer having to go to the radio shop to accomplish these tasks or taking the radio system down for several hours.

Q: What was the process in choosing the radio system that LVMPD is going to?
A: There were some starts and stops in choosing the vendor. A request for proposal (RFP) was completed and two companies, MA-com and Motorola, submitted bids. MA-Com (now called Harris) won the bid mostly because of the data ability of the system and that its programming is backwards compatible.

Q: What is the fielding schedule for the units to receive the digital radios?
A: Currently, the plan is to have a cut over from the analog system to digital during the first quarter of 2010. As many officers have seen, the digital mobile radios are in the cars now, but are not fully functional. Between now and first quarter 2010, there will be digital radio testing with about 500 to 1000 employees, starting with Gangs, TAS, CSI and Cadets/ PSRs. This will include training officers on the capability of the new system. This system is much more capable than just turning it on and pushing a button to talk. Officers will get hands-on training to be able to fully utilize its potential. As with any new system, there are possible delays that could push back the cut-over timeframe we have established, but we are hopeful that by early next year Metro will be in the digital age.

Q: Were federal funds used to pay for this system, or was it the LVMPD operating budget?
A: Forfeiture funds were used to fund the contract. The terminal equipment, mobile (car) and portable (officer) radios were funded by a combination of sources such as forfeiture, a Public Safety Interoperability Communication (PSIC) grant and a state grant for the radio cache system.

Q: Has there been any testing around the Las Vegas Valley and Metro Resident Officer areas?
A: A scientific drive test was completed throughout the Las Vegas Valley area, 20 residential areas in Clark County and all the paved roads throughout Clark County. Testing of interfaces with Dispatch and the interface between the new OpenSky radio system to the old legacy radio system is ongoing. Currently, there is about 85% reception coverage with the analog radio system. The digital system will give officers approximately 95% or better mobile/portable coverage with better reception and much faster data rate transfer. Officers know where the current radio dead spots are, and this system was tested to ensure that coverage would be available in those areas such as Lee Canyon, Sandy Valley, inside Laughlin and strip casinos and area hospitals.

Q: What is the cost of the portable radios?
A: We are purchasing two different styles of digital radios sets:
The P7270 is $3,791.50 each. This will be carried by all police officers and corrections officers assigned to the Field Services Section (FSS) and other non-fixed posts at CCDC. Other units that will be in support of the police mission, such as the Criminalistics Bureau and other civilian sections, will also receive the P7270. This model has a number keypad on the front of the unit which allows for additional functions.

The P5250 cost $1891.50 each. These radios will be assigned to fixed posts at CCDC and to other LVMPD sections that do not need the full functionality of the P7270. The P5250 has no keypad on the front of the unit but otherwise operates the same.

Q: Can anyone get a scanner and listen to our digital radio traffic?
A: The short answer is no. Digital scanner technology in the consumer market place does not exist today.

Q: Will the local news channels and the Review Journal/Las Vegas Sun newspapers be able to listen to our digital radio traffic?
A: The news outlets will be able to listen to only the area commands talk group (channels). This will involve them buying their own digital radio from Harris. These radios will be programmed only by our LVMPD radio shop and the talk button will be disabled. Additionally, they must engage in an end-user agreement with the LVMPD. All other talk groups will be closed to them.

Q: Will the officers’ current earpieces work with the P7250 or P5250 radio sets?
A: No, they are not compatible. Metro will provide hand mics and earpieces for those currently authorized to have them. Officers can purchase earpieces on their own for about $20-$40.

Q: What is the advantage of the digital radios over the current radios?
A: Less interference, elimination of being covered by another radio, last unit history of talking, quicker data transfer, long-term interoperability, emergency button and scalability to meet the needs of the Department in the future.

I want to thank Captain Herb Baker and Officer Mike Barnbeck for their contribution to this article. If you have any questions about the digital radio system, please contact the Radio System Bureau at xxx-xxxx.

 

[mdickerson17]

Heres the link to the post above, its on page 6. http://www.lasd.org/divisions/leadership-training-div/bureaus/ebd/assets/lvppa-vegas-beat-10-09.pdf

 

[ILMRadioMan]

The federal government has also mandated that first responders move to a public-safety spectrum in the 700 to 800 MHz range for better commonality and disaster coordination with other local, state and federal agencies.

Ouch.

To anyone that wants to say the end consumer is getting the wool pulled over their eyes by salesman, etc...simply look here.

Even a very casual questioning of anyone with knowledge of the FCC, would shoot that one straight to the ground.

Either they are trying to lie to the citizens, or they didnt do even a light amount of research.

 

[N_Jay]

Ouch.QUOTE]
That particular low hanging branch is so common I have stopped hitting my head against it.

To anyone that wants to say the end consumer is getting the wool pulled over their eyes by salesman, etc...simply look here.

Much more likely that;
1) It was simplified for him by his subordinates to the point of misunderstanding.
or,
2) it was "simplified" for the memo, probably by an admin that does not understand the issues.

Even a very casual questioning of anyone with knowledge of the FCC, would shoot that one straight to the ground.

And why would you have thought that would occur?

Either they are trying to lie to the citizens, or they didnt do even a light amount of research.

Likely #2

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Much more likely that;
1) It was simplified for him by his subordinates to the point of misunderstanding.
or,
2) it was "simplified" for the memo, probably by an admin that does not understand the issues.

Yea I realize that, but after the "Cincinnati" topic, where salesmen apparently sell either horrible equipment, or horribly excessive equipment to customers that are being led like a flock of sheep.

Shame if we should suggest that the customer should bear a burden of responsibility for not doing research.