It's not new. I've seen it before, along with demands that agencies that use encryption or non-scannable digital modes buy all of the scanners as compensation for the terrible inconvenience they have caused :roll:. Why someone would take the money from what they think is a corrupt secret police force that is violating their rights as taxpayers, I don't know.
MI - Police scanners go silent
- Thread starter DPike
- Start date
- Status
It's not new. I've seen it before, along with demands that agencies that use encryption or non-scannable digital modes buy all of the scanners as compensation for the terrible inconvenience they have caused :roll:. Why someone would take the money from what they think is a corrupt secret police force that is violating their rights as taxpayers, I don't know.
idontknow82
Member
N_jay....How many user names do you have here?
Apparently you kind of people are the reason why these agencies think its ok encrypt, you shrug and say OH OK, with NO questioning as to the real reason why there doing it. Now thats stupid thinking.
Apparently you kind of people are the reason why these agencies think its ok encrypt, you shrug and say OH OK, with NO questioning as to the real reason why there doing it. Now thats stupid thinking.
N
N_Jay
Guest
One. The policy against multiple user names is strictly enforces, I have been told.
First, let me explain a FACT. It IS ok for them to encrypt.
Your opinion does not change that FACT.
Your not acknowledging it, does not change that FACT.
Your arguments against it, do not change that FACT.
and your stupid rationalizations do not change that FACT.
As a matter of fact, I have not expressed my OPINION on encryption in this thread (or any other that I can recall recently).
Your disdain for encryption colors your thinking so much that you have missed that little FACT.
Here is where you have it so wrong. I work with the agencies and help them determine what their needs are. What features and functions they require in their systems.
So I ask lots of questions, and know many of the good (and some of the not so good) reasons they chose to encrypt or chose not to encrypt.
No, I think you have taken up the championing of stupid thinking in this thread.
But, be happy, there are some on the other side that use just as poor logic.
idontknow82
Member
Law enforcement isn't logical, if they were they wouldn't be using encryption. There is NO logic in government whatsoever.
So telling me I am not logical or stupid isn't going to change anything. I just view it differently.
KC8YTK
Member
Agreed. Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS) is by far a superior system. It is the largest trunked radio system of its kind in North America and coordinates communication for the other 82 counties in Michigan with no problem. I have used MPSCS and for large scale emergencies it is most certainly the best choice.
N
N_Jay
Guest
What are you talking about?
Do you grasp the concept of what a FACT is?
In your OPINION, I presume?
Another OPINION, I presume?
Obviously so.
Encryption remains available and legal.
And you remain . . . .
View? No, I think believe is a better word.
idontknow82
Member
I think you fail to see that the government messes up everything they touch. And you remain....
kd8ati
Member
What I would like to know is how in just a few posts we go from Opensky to encrypted? In MY opinion, encryption is a good thing, for certain talk groups and/or agencies. SWAT and detectives are part of that group. However, for a dispatch talk group to be encrypted is in my opinion, a waste of the taxpayers money.
As far as opensky goes, it is MY opinion that it has been and will continue to be a black money hole. The contract was awarded to Opensky in Feb of 2002. That is a FACT. Its original completion date was sometime in late '04 or early '05. That is a FACT. In late 2009 it is still not fully operational. Yet again, FACT. It has been AND still is plagued by bugs, technical issues, and dead spots. More FACTS. Nationwide Opensky has been awarded or have had people bid on 25 contracts. Out of those 25, only 12 are fully functional. Three other contracts have been terminated. About another three or four are online but not yet working to contract specs.
The users of this system here in Oakland County are not happy with this system. That is the OPINION of the people who use this system. Some fire departments refuse to let their firefighters use this system on a fireground. That is a FACT.
It has been said that the coverage on the MPSCS system is not good in Oakland County and that is why they went with this system. That is a bunch of smelly political fertilizer. Although it may not be good now, put 35 MPSCS towers around the county like opensky did and I am willing to bet that the MPSCS coverage would be BETTER then opensky. I am also willing to bet it would not take half that many towers, but then again, that is just my OPINION.
In my OPINION, the concept behind this system is good. However the technology has not got all the bugs worked out and the company still needs to do a lot of work on it before putting it in the hands of those who protect us. Unfortunately it appears opensky has hired ex used car salesman to sell their products and the county is eating it up. Maybe they can buy extra radios for the scanner listeners from New York? What do you all think? haha.
As far as opensky goes, it is MY opinion that it has been and will continue to be a black money hole. The contract was awarded to Opensky in Feb of 2002. That is a FACT. Its original completion date was sometime in late '04 or early '05. That is a FACT. In late 2009 it is still not fully operational. Yet again, FACT. It has been AND still is plagued by bugs, technical issues, and dead spots. More FACTS. Nationwide Opensky has been awarded or have had people bid on 25 contracts. Out of those 25, only 12 are fully functional. Three other contracts have been terminated. About another three or four are online but not yet working to contract specs.
The users of this system here in Oakland County are not happy with this system. That is the OPINION of the people who use this system. Some fire departments refuse to let their firefighters use this system on a fireground. That is a FACT.
It has been said that the coverage on the MPSCS system is not good in Oakland County and that is why they went with this system. That is a bunch of smelly political fertilizer. Although it may not be good now, put 35 MPSCS towers around the county like opensky did and I am willing to bet that the MPSCS coverage would be BETTER then opensky. I am also willing to bet it would not take half that many towers, but then again, that is just my OPINION.
In my OPINION, the concept behind this system is good. However the technology has not got all the bugs worked out and the company still needs to do a lot of work on it before putting it in the hands of those who protect us. Unfortunately it appears opensky has hired ex used car salesman to sell their products and the county is eating it up. Maybe they can buy extra radios for the scanner listeners from New York? What do you all think? haha.
Hooligan
Member
I'll definitely defer to your local observations. My info came from a friend with a scanner in RO who hung out with an ROPD officer friend of his after they got the new radios.
I wonder why though they're bothering to patch to the old VHF channel if they're 100% migrated to the new system?
mikey60
Member
N
N_Jay
Guest
Now that we are completely off-topic, I suggest you look up a few of my posts in the tavern on politics.
kd8ati
Member
Mikey!!! Hey yeah I heard those transmissions earlier to. It seems they are very spotty. I am still trying to figure out why exactly they do it. A few nights ago it was patched through and it sounded like HP Dispatch was on the conv radio. Weird.
73's
RayAir
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,940
Police scanners go silent? That's OK, so do Open Sky radios, especially preps. At least that is what I have been told by system users.(ex- numerous prep issues have caused calls to only come over the mobile radio and not the prep, many instances of personnel being out of contact while out of car and unaware of it). I hope to be able to post a complete list of all the current issues with this system. I'm just beginning to compile my initial interview data.
Hopefully ,they get the bugs worked out of this system.God knows for what the county paid for it, it better perform to original specifications per the contract. Considering that O/S was supposed to be fully operational countywide 5-6 years ago and today only a small fraction of PD/FD agencies are using it, it doesn't look to be fully operational anytime soon ,if ever. O/S technology looks impressive on paper. It seems more advanced than P25, but what was on paper hasn't been realized. One would have thought the more advanced AMBE vocoder would have solved some of the problems with IMBE vocoders as are used in P25 radio systems. To be continued........
Hopefully ,they get the bugs worked out of this system.God knows for what the county paid for it, it better perform to original specifications per the contract. Considering that O/S was supposed to be fully operational countywide 5-6 years ago and today only a small fraction of PD/FD agencies are using it, it doesn't look to be fully operational anytime soon ,if ever. O/S technology looks impressive on paper. It seems more advanced than P25, but what was on paper hasn't been realized. One would have thought the more advanced AMBE vocoder would have solved some of the problems with IMBE vocoders as are used in P25 radio systems. To be continued........
N
N_Jay
Guest
What about OpenSky is particularly impressive?
What seems more advanced than P25?
What hasn't been realized?
What particular problems, would you expect the vocoder to have solved?
I hope so.
Let's close this up
Mr. Moderator:
Time to close this thread. It's gone from "Community Announcement and News" about OC and OpenSky, to a three page musdslinging convention. The announcement has been made, I suggest this thread be closed.
Thank you
Mr. Moderator:
Time to close this thread. It's gone from "Community Announcement and News" about OC and OpenSky, to a three page musdslinging convention. The announcement has been made, I suggest this thread be closed.
Thank you
...which is pretty typical of encryption and Opensky threads here. It would be entirely unnecessary if people could realize that:
a. Scanner listeners don't have an inherent right to listen.
b. Scanner listening isn't the magic panacea to open and honest government.
c. Agencies that opt to encrypt are not likely to want to share their specific reasons with the general public, and that there is no constitutional requirement that they do so, and...
d. Opensky has enough successful implementations out there that when it's bid against other system architecture, apparently someone can make a case that it's a worthwhile and cost effective solution, and it's
"listenibility" by scanners is just not a factor.
Agencies have a right to go encrypted or move to scanner unfriendly formats, just as we have a right to pack up and live somewhere that doesn't use encryption. If our county goes green, I'll be outta here in a heartbeat. I won't let encryption stop me from enjoying the hobby. It's really that simple.
Hooligan
Member
I suppose we should all hope that this interoperability FAD continues for a long time, because the next fad that gets LEA all worked up about to get federal funds for might be encryption.
Implementations
What do you consider "enough" for having successful implementations? As of last count, I could find 18 contracts signed for Voice OpenSky systems, not including New York, yet I only see one Voice system fully operational on time which was Newton CO Georgia.
Just curious.
What do you consider "enough" for having successful implementations? As of last count, I could find 18 contracts signed for Voice OpenSky systems, not including New York, yet I only see one Voice system fully operational on time which was Newton CO Georgia.
Just curious.
One would do it.
Ok... Before you all run off half-cocked and half-baked, let me make it clear that I am not an advocate of Open Sky. All my previous statement indicates is, there are enough existing systems out there that some agencies are able to justify going that route.
Ok, there's my disclaimer. Best information I'm able to find in a 5 minute internet search is, Fedex has 19 systems; Orange County Transit Authority; Newton County, GA; Detroit Department of Transportation (?); Oakland County, MI;Cumberland County, PA, State of PA, statewide; Ozaukee County, WI... and a dozen more under construction.
I will not define any of these as "successful" because I have no facts regarding that, pro or con, and I'm not trying to sell anyone on Open Sky. Again, my entire point is merely to state that there are enough systems out there that agencies making tough decisions are apparently (on occasion) finding cause to justify selecting Open Sky.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked