Louisville is about to go digital/trunked in '09 and they are using Motorola. Has anyone been haveing the kind of problems with Moto that are being had with M/A Com?
M/A Com Woes New York
- Thread starter rr60
- Start date
- Status
N
N_Jay
Guest
Bluegrass1dcr1 said:
Yep!
Almost all systems have growing pains. Some worse then others.
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,621
There is enought space in 800 where NJSP shouldn't be interfearing with the system at all. In fact, any Freq liceses would (should) have been seperated. They were doing some "cool, look at this new radio tests" down in NYC for the big wigs, but the primary testing is being done upstate, well away from NJ.
Rumor mill across my desk the other day is that MA/COM is trying to blame Nextel interference for part of the test failures.
Rumor mill across my desk the other day is that MA/COM is trying to blame Nextel interference for part of the test failures.
Forget trying to fix the problem, just point the finger and blame someone else.
N_Jay said:
Your mileage may vary, but I'm not aware of any Motorola systems in my region (PA/NJ/DE included) that have encountered the same delays and issues that Pennsylvania's M/A-COM OpenSky system. Yes, I know there is a major difference in size between a statewide network and a county network.
No, I don't work for Motorola, I'm just making an observation. Yes, the Moto systems had problems (what complex system doesn't encounter some problems?). However, it would seem that all of the large scale OpenSky projects have had lengthy delays in implementation. PA is at the 10 year mark now and we still have a system that is only partially operational.
902
Member
I have an observation. I work in the public sector and operate several public safety VHF radio systems (I don't work for any of these players; I'm not even in the same part of the country). ALL of my systems have identified coverage issues and all of these coverage issues (simulcast overlaps, 'dead spots,' interference - both internal and external) will be exacerbated with narrowbanding requiring additional investment just to get back to pre-narrowbanding quality of service. Coverage is not an issue that is unique to one manufacturer or technology - or even band. ALL RADIO SYSTEMS have issues of one sort or another. As listeners and even responders, you may not be aware of them, or you may be aware of only aspects that affect your particular realm. Good management means a commitment to working through the issues to get something that has more utility than what it replaced.
I've also managed several complex projects, including VoIP telephony and Radio over IP control. Some of you may not be familiar with a concept called "force majeure," which boiled down means pretty much "stuff happens." In one of my projects, we turned out to be the beta testbed for a not-ready-for-primetime implementation. At the 11th hour an integration partner pulled out of their commitment leaving us with racks of stuff that do... nothing. This was close of business on a Friday and the turn-up was going to happen Monday morning. In the three months following, the prime contractor and manufacturer had to find a new partner who would be willing to allow their equipment, intellectual property, etc. to be used in our application (9-1-1). Once that was done, it was a barefoot walk through broken glass to finally optimize the system to where it is today. And, on several occasions, that bloody walk involved sit-downs, lawyers and even frank discussions of terminating the project and cutting losses. We stuck out the 9-1-1 implementation and now have something better than what we had. The project I was involved in took much longer than originally anticipated because of these curve balls.
All I can say is that businesses do not stay in business without ultimately delivering.
None of them.
I also find it interesting that NOBODY has posted or referred to the NYS CIO's office statement dated 11 December regarding the SWN project. All may find it addresses some of the hyperbole and ad hominem assertions surrounding their implementation. It's pretty well-known in the professional public safety communications officials' circle.
http://www.oft.state.ny.us/SWN/swndocs/1211207QAs.pdf
I've also managed several complex projects, including VoIP telephony and Radio over IP control. Some of you may not be familiar with a concept called "force majeure," which boiled down means pretty much "stuff happens." In one of my projects, we turned out to be the beta testbed for a not-ready-for-primetime implementation. At the 11th hour an integration partner pulled out of their commitment leaving us with racks of stuff that do... nothing. This was close of business on a Friday and the turn-up was going to happen Monday morning. In the three months following, the prime contractor and manufacturer had to find a new partner who would be willing to allow their equipment, intellectual property, etc. to be used in our application (9-1-1). Once that was done, it was a barefoot walk through broken glass to finally optimize the system to where it is today. And, on several occasions, that bloody walk involved sit-downs, lawyers and even frank discussions of terminating the project and cutting losses. We stuck out the 9-1-1 implementation and now have something better than what we had. The project I was involved in took much longer than originally anticipated because of these curve balls.
All I can say is that businesses do not stay in business without ultimately delivering.
None of them.
I also find it interesting that NOBODY has posted or referred to the NYS CIO's office statement dated 11 December regarding the SWN project. All may find it addresses some of the hyperbole and ad hominem assertions surrounding their implementation. It's pretty well-known in the professional public safety communications officials' circle.
http://www.oft.state.ny.us/SWN/swndocs/1211207QAs.pdf
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,621
In speaking with certain counties and users of the MA/COM system in PA, they hate it and have had nothing but problems...yet the NY release makes it sound like its in full operation statewide and people love it.
Yeah, right.
Reading that statement, leads me to believe a little CYA is going on there. I know for a fact that several counties who are "full partners" have pretty much given up on the SWN project and are now looking into doing their own multi-county radio system.
There is rooting for a dream and hoping that its working...then there are those who are sinking on a ship telling everyone that is just a minor detail that's being worked on..
Yeah, right.
Reading that statement, leads me to believe a little CYA is going on there. I know for a fact that several counties who are "full partners" have pretty much given up on the SWN project and are now looking into doing their own multi-county radio system.
There is rooting for a dream and hoping that its working...then there are those who are sinking on a ship telling everyone that is just a minor detail that's being worked on..
N
N_Jay
Guest
PJH said:
A Little???:twisted:
When that was first released we decided it was all CYA and "Paint a pretty picture" stuff.
I've been following this thread for a while, and am finding it both amusing and distressing. I have to ask... How many of you people have actually been intimately involved in a project of this nature? I mean, participated in the needs assessments, wrote specifications and RFP's, reviewed bids, sat in on design reviews, wrote federal grant applications, purchased land for tower sites, and all the many, many other steps that have to be taken to build a large radio system? How many of you have seen perfectly logical and sound engineering decisions rendered useless by politicians who "know better" or have "the bigger picture"? How many of you have had to make engineering compromises based on what a lawyer said, or an elected official, or worse yet, a cop who didn't know what end of the microphone to talk into?
I have. All of the above.
And how many of you have no experience at all beyond plugging frequencies into a scanner and listening?
I've lived through several implementations of M/A-Com EDACS systems, as well as Motorola systems ( and a number of various microwave systems) in my 30 very odd years in the business, and have found nothing substantially different with either M/A-COM or Motorola in how they build radio systems. All this M/A-Com bashing that takes place here is coming from pure ignorance. I've seen their engineers beg and plead and stomp their feet (figuratively) in response to poor management decisions, I've seen their competent designs ruined by cost cutting measures and micromanaging, and I've seen them take the blame for late projects when it was the customer who delayed the site acquisition process until the last minute. Virtually every EDACS implementation that I've had to endure was fouled by customer incompetence, not M/A-Com incompetence. I have seen them have to walk away from large accounts - system implementations that failed through absolutely no fault of their own.
And I've seen the same happen to Motorola.
I don't have any direct exposure to Opensky beyond participating in a bid process in which they lost. But from what I've seen, it's actually a workable system. I suspect that much of the bad press they get is caused more by the bungling of the customers and end users, and less so by an inferior product.
There is no love lost between myself and either M/A-Com or Motorola. But when I see comments like what I've seen here in this thread, I really have to wonder how many (or few) of you really know what the hell you're talking about.
There are a few notable exceptions to my rant. You know who you are.
I have. All of the above.
And how many of you have no experience at all beyond plugging frequencies into a scanner and listening?
I've lived through several implementations of M/A-Com EDACS systems, as well as Motorola systems ( and a number of various microwave systems) in my 30 very odd years in the business, and have found nothing substantially different with either M/A-COM or Motorola in how they build radio systems. All this M/A-Com bashing that takes place here is coming from pure ignorance. I've seen their engineers beg and plead and stomp their feet (figuratively) in response to poor management decisions, I've seen their competent designs ruined by cost cutting measures and micromanaging, and I've seen them take the blame for late projects when it was the customer who delayed the site acquisition process until the last minute. Virtually every EDACS implementation that I've had to endure was fouled by customer incompetence, not M/A-Com incompetence. I have seen them have to walk away from large accounts - system implementations that failed through absolutely no fault of their own.
And I've seen the same happen to Motorola.
I don't have any direct exposure to Opensky beyond participating in a bid process in which they lost. But from what I've seen, it's actually a workable system. I suspect that much of the bad press they get is caused more by the bungling of the customers and end users, and less so by an inferior product.
There is no love lost between myself and either M/A-Com or Motorola. But when I see comments like what I've seen here in this thread, I really have to wonder how many (or few) of you really know what the hell you're talking about.
There are a few notable exceptions to my rant. You know who you are.
Last edited:
ElroyJetson said:
And what happens if the system that's actually needed, needs to cost 3 billion dollars? Who takes the blame for a crappy system... The vendor who built a system designed to a crappy specification, or the guy who WROTE that crappy specification?
Last edited:
902
Member
The guy who wrote the crappy specification has moved on to writing his next crappy specification for some other agency. The people who under-funded the project have (hopefully) lost their elections or became the subjects of term limits, or media scandals and are now running their own Amway franchise or have become televangelists - but a new crop always takes their place.zz0468 said:
None of these people ever live with the consequences of what a poorly orchestrated situation becomes or has to dive through a window because their radio can't hear the control channel. And, none of these people is really concerned with working it through after they get their money.
That leaves only two parties holding the bag: the user and the manufacturer.
Sometimes the only resolution after something has been built-out is to go back and see what the excursions from best practice are, address those and amazingly, it usually ends up working out. Still, someone pays. It usually ends up being both parties, in both money and reputation.
Can U Provide A Copy
I am responding to the below posting....Echo can u post your letter here or send me a copy???
======================================================
I live in PA. When NY signed a contract for an M/A Com OpenSky system, I had the opportunity to correspond with one of the M/A Com folks in charge of the NY project. The gentleman told me that PA was a borderline failure, but NY would be fine because "it's all in the planning". Yup! I hope the folks in Illinois have a good plan or are good at rolling with the punches!
__________________
ECHO 3
I am responding to the below posting....Echo can u post your letter here or send me a copy???
======================================================
I live in PA. When NY signed a contract for an M/A Com OpenSky system, I had the opportunity to correspond with one of the M/A Com folks in charge of the NY project. The gentleman told me that PA was a borderline failure, but NY would be fine because "it's all in the planning". Yup! I hope the folks in Illinois have a good plan or are good at rolling with the punches!
__________________
ECHO 3
902 said:
That's right. Except in some of the cases I've dealt with, the politicians and managers got to stay in their jobs to mismanage and underfund the NEXT project!
902 said:
How about bringing in a consultant to fix the screwups the first consultant did. And then replacing THAT one with yet another. I've seen that happen, too. All the while, the people who REALLY know what's going on get ignored. They're not being "team players".
902 said:
Yep. And unfortunately for M/A-Com, they've been involved in a few spectacular failures, so they get more than their fair share of bad press. But nobody seems to appreciate their many successes.
902 said:
Yep. And that translates to delays, and cost over runs. And guess who gets the blame... The manufacturer.
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,621
MA/COM's OpenSky itself has not had a single known up an running system working at least at 75% capacity since OpenSky was released, many years ago.
I did some research for the county when this contract was done by NY. Here (at the time) was a quick synopsis of what was found. This may be a little updated, I'd have to check my notes for new development.
OpenSky has been sold to:
State of PA - Not fully up and running. Started 1999. State Police using the data side for a year or so. PennDOT switched over last year, but ended up reinstalling their old radios due to coverage and equipment problems. SP Lancaster swtiched over for field trials, experiencing issues as well. Switched back to the VHF system.
Lancaster County PA - Project started 1999 as well. Various problems and pushbacks (as shown above). System loading to start in 2008 if problems are solved.
Cumberland County PA - Project started 1999 - Experiencing the same problems as Lancaster. Most problems are software related. Police are online in spots, but not 100%. Also see previous comments.
Allegheny County PA - Announced 8/2004. Unsure of the status. No mention on the county website.
Detroit Transportation System - Annouced 2002, single site on UHF for city buses. Unknown status.
Oakland County, Michigan (OpenSky selected 2/2002, System cutover attempeted 2003 several times, Full switcher attempted 10/05, again 4/06, 6/06, last attempt was 1/07. Still not fully on line.) Next expected countywide cutover Fall of 2007.
Palm Beach County, FL (Contract issued, 2001 - Scrapped in favor of a Motorola System)
Central Arizona Project - Private OpenSky system (no information available. Small 5 site system contracted in 2004)
Milwaukee, WI - Contract 2003, planned operation 5/2005, 11/05, 6/06, as of 1/07 not online but slated for 8/07.
Peoria County IL Sheriff - Vote was to be taken on 5/06. FD and PD not happy with MA/COM with their current radios. Unknown if they went with Motorola or MA/COM.
Orange County Transportation CA - OpenSky in limited use. Coverage issues. OCT Police moved off of the system and now on the Motorola Sheriff's system after transit police were not being heard.
I did some research for the county when this contract was done by NY. Here (at the time) was a quick synopsis of what was found. This may be a little updated, I'd have to check my notes for new development.
OpenSky has been sold to:
State of PA - Not fully up and running. Started 1999. State Police using the data side for a year or so. PennDOT switched over last year, but ended up reinstalling their old radios due to coverage and equipment problems. SP Lancaster swtiched over for field trials, experiencing issues as well. Switched back to the VHF system.
Lancaster County PA - Project started 1999 as well. Various problems and pushbacks (as shown above). System loading to start in 2008 if problems are solved.
Cumberland County PA - Project started 1999 - Experiencing the same problems as Lancaster. Most problems are software related. Police are online in spots, but not 100%. Also see previous comments.
Allegheny County PA - Announced 8/2004. Unsure of the status. No mention on the county website.
Detroit Transportation System - Annouced 2002, single site on UHF for city buses. Unknown status.
Oakland County, Michigan (OpenSky selected 2/2002, System cutover attempeted 2003 several times, Full switcher attempted 10/05, again 4/06, 6/06, last attempt was 1/07. Still not fully on line.) Next expected countywide cutover Fall of 2007.
Palm Beach County, FL (Contract issued, 2001 - Scrapped in favor of a Motorola System)
Central Arizona Project - Private OpenSky system (no information available. Small 5 site system contracted in 2004)
Milwaukee, WI - Contract 2003, planned operation 5/2005, 11/05, 6/06, as of 1/07 not online but slated for 8/07.
Peoria County IL Sheriff - Vote was to be taken on 5/06. FD and PD not happy with MA/COM with their current radios. Unknown if they went with Motorola or MA/COM.
Orange County Transportation CA - OpenSky in limited use. Coverage issues. OCT Police moved off of the system and now on the Motorola Sheriff's system after transit police were not being heard.
Can you provide any information as to why none of those systems worked? There's more to the story than 'It's Opensky". A lot more. I'd be curious as to what you find.
What bothers me is that I know EDACS... and it's a damned good system. Actually better than Motorola's equivalent systems in many many ways. But it constantly gets bashed here. I've seen Opensky demos, and it worked pretty well. I don't have any specifics as to what went wrong in all those systems that you mention. Budget constraints? Not enough sites/coverage issues? Is it more prone to interference from Nextel? I don't know... I'd like to hear some details.
What bothers me is that I know EDACS... and it's a damned good system. Actually better than Motorola's equivalent systems in many many ways. But it constantly gets bashed here. I've seen Opensky demos, and it worked pretty well. I don't have any specifics as to what went wrong in all those systems that you mention. Budget constraints? Not enough sites/coverage issues? Is it more prone to interference from Nextel? I don't know... I'd like to hear some details.
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,621
From what I recall, most was actually related to the backend/technology of OpenSky itself. The PA radios have gone thru many software "upgrades" just to get the radio's to work properly. Its like the dark days of Windows XP (pre SP1) and Windows ME all over again.
EDACS is a pretty robust product, and I put it on the same playing field as Motorola SmartNet/SmartZone.
PA had a host of problems that MA/COM had no control over, however there are many technical issues that are clearly MA/COM's. I have played with the PA radios, and seen the NY demo's. The demo's that NY puts on will of course be cool. It operates out of the usual trailer and is setup for show... just like Motorola's mobile SZ and Trbo systems. In the field, its subject to everything working correctly.
Opensky in my neck of the woods over in PA has been up and running since at least 2004. However, only the data portion has been operational. PennDOT tried a voice switch over last year which was scrapped with the old radio's reinstalled, and the PSP tried it very briefly and had hugh voice problems (quality more than coverage). In fact, some of the mobile radios in the PSP cars have are in their third vehicle, and have never been used.
EDACS is a pretty robust product, and I put it on the same playing field as Motorola SmartNet/SmartZone.
PA had a host of problems that MA/COM had no control over, however there are many technical issues that are clearly MA/COM's. I have played with the PA radios, and seen the NY demo's. The demo's that NY puts on will of course be cool. It operates out of the usual trailer and is setup for show... just like Motorola's mobile SZ and Trbo systems. In the field, its subject to everything working correctly.
Opensky in my neck of the woods over in PA has been up and running since at least 2004. However, only the data portion has been operational. PennDOT tried a voice switch over last year which was scrapped with the old radio's reinstalled, and the PSP tried it very briefly and had hugh voice problems (quality more than coverage). In fact, some of the mobile radios in the PSP cars have are in their third vehicle, and have never been used.
Actually PJH, Peoria County is in it's installation stage of Opensky and I believe Las Vegas PD is in its testing phase but havn't heard any reports yet.
Jason
Jason
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,621
The last I was able to dig up, I think the county pushing for OpenSky, but it was meeting a lot of resistance from the FD and PD people due to the high failure rate of their EDACS portable and/or mobiles (this is from memory, but seems right). They didn't feel confident about using more MA/COM products due to their perceived lack of support to their situation.
- Status
