I AM NOT YOUR TECH SUPPPORT.
- Sep 8, 2002
Double wow. I can hear the thundering herd of lawyers headed to file protests from here....lol
I wouldn't be surprised to see once all the litigation is done and they can move forward, Motorola contracting Harris to monitor the system and do service while they construct a brand new system. Been a long time but I believe that's what happened when ComNet Ericsson M/A Com whatever then took SLERS from Motorola. Like 1998 1999 timeframe. I had just finished classes in Schaumburg in order to maintain 18 to 20 sites on that system when Motorola lost the contract.Prediction: Unless the coverage requirement is altered, and more sites added to improve coverage, having this contract would be a trap for any company that gets it.
If an officer get hurt or killed because his portable radio won't work, 20 miles from the nearest tower site, guess who gets the blame? Never mind that at that location a mobile radio will work and signal coverage is exactly according to contract specifications.
It's a trap!
Not probably. Likely.If you want more, it'll cost you more to put up more sites." "No, we think it'll work, you just don't want to do what we ask. We're giving up on you."
Do not blame Motorola for finding 'gaps' in coverage. Look at the contract specs, and listen to what the complaints about coverage are. It is not the manufacturers fault if the customer does not want to pay for portable coverage, then complains that there is no portable coverage.Moto will do as they do on every contract..... Underbid to get it, then 'find' the gaps in the system and demand more money to fix it.... It'll be double the cost before they get done with it....
I've seen system maps, estimated and 'tested' coverage...that are nothing like 'real' coverage.. Areas that were supposed to be covered well into the next county that weren't even covered in open water river that separated the counties...Do not blame Motorola for finding 'gaps' in coverage. Look at the contract specs, and listen to what the complaints about coverage are. It is not the manufacturers fault if the customer does not want to pay for portable coverage, then complains that there is no portable coverage.
My Provincial government originally wanted portable coverage everywhere(Gold Star system), but when they saw the cost for it, they bought 95/95 mobile on primary and secondary highway coverage system(Participation ribbon system) and there are already agencies complaining about coverage because they are only using portable subscribers.