New K-county radio system?

[scannerboy02]

You must not be aware that Indiana's statewide public safety radio system, Project SAFE-T, was completely paid for, and installed, by the state, with state and federal funding, and nobody pays user or subscriber fees...for anything. (That I'm aware of).

It's not like Ohio, or Michigan, or maybe even KY, where the cities, counties, or agencies are required to pay for and install their own sites, then pay subscribers fees per radio per month, inorder to have interop capabilities.

I was aware of that and that's the way it should be done for everyone.

I do believe the agencies are required to pay for the purchase of the radios, I also believe they are responsible for radio maintenance/repair costs.

 

[AK9R]

I do believe the agencies are required to pay for the purchase of the radios, I also believe they are responsible for radio maintenance/repair costs.

This is true.

Also, if a county wants more sites than the IPSC-funded studies say are necessary to provide coverage for state agencies, then the counties have to pay for those sites.

 

[west-pac]

Both of you guys are correct, counties are able to fund additional system infrastructure, to add to SAFE-T, beyond what IPSC deemed necessary; and counties also buy their own radios, albeit radios are mostly bought via annual grants year after year.

With that being said, that creates a perfect segway into why counties are buying their own radio systems.

If a county wants better radio coverage or a simulcast cell, the county is going to have to fund that, and there probably isn't much cost difference between installing 3 additional towers and giving control to IPSC to add to SAFE-T; or installing the 3 towers and having it be it's own radio system that the county controls. Elected county officials are likely hesitant of spending 6-figures ($$$) on radio system infrastructure, then giving it away for the state to control.

As far as radios themselves, if they're bought via grants distributed thru the state, I believe one of the stipulations is the ability to work on SAFE-T for interoperability purposes. If a county programs SAFE-T and a local county P25 system into the radios then they likely still qualify for most radio grants.

Also, on a related subject, who is going to be financially responsible for upgrading the current county-funded simulcast cells from P25 Phase 1 to P25 Phase 2 when SAFE-T switches to Phase 2? If the county is responsible, why would any county add a simulcast cell to SAFE-T right now, when their investment may only be relevant for a few years, then additional taxpayer monies will be needed during the switch to Phase 2. Whereas if counties build a Phase 2 system now, there won't be any additional costs or concerns later when the state transitions.

Throw in the civil unrest from 2019, depts wanting to add encryption, streaming scanner feeds and social media, CoViD, the aging SAFE-T system, and without getting political..the 'Infrastructure' bill that just became law (because there will be money in there for towers and radio systems for securing infrastructure),...and it becomes a perfect time for counties to think about and discuss safety, infrastructure, and control...which all relates to a county-owned public safety radio system.

 

[AK9R]

If a county wants better radio coverage or a simulcast cell, the county is going to have to fund that, and there probably isn't much cost difference between installing 3 additional towers and giving control to IPSC to add to SAFE-T; or installing the 3 towers and having it be it's own radio system that the county controls.

Except that if the county buys its own radio system, they are forever on the hook to maintain it. If they go with SAFE-T, routine maintenance is IPSC's responsibility. It's the difference between making radio system maintenance a line item in the county's budget that has to be funded every year vs. everybody in the county paying state taxes to maintain the state system (which we do, anyway).

Elected county officials are likely hesitant of spending 6-figures ($$$) on radio system infrastructure, then giving it away for the state to control.

Sadly, elected officials don't seem to be able to look past their next election campaign. In the town where I live, we are still paying the price of decisions made by elected officials years ago even though those officials are long gone from town government. It's up to the electorate to stand up in council or commission meetings and ask "what is the decision you are making today going to cost us 5, 10, 15 years from now?".

As far as radios themselves, if they're bought via grants distributed thru the state, I believe one of the stipulations is the ability to work on SAFE-T for interoperability purposes. If a county programs SAFE-T and a local county P25 system into the radios then they likely still qualify for most radio grants.

But, if a county buys into a DMR or NXDN system, they won't be able to use those radios on SAFE-T unless they buy expensive multi-mode radios or unless they plan on manually-initiated "patches" between systems. A "consultant" or vendor pushing a county towards DMR is isolating the county from SAFE-T and, possibly, neighboring jurisdictions. The elected officials need to know that, but it rarely comes up when the bids are opened.

As an aside, there was a recent police chase that started in Greencastle and ended on I-465 in Indianapolis. Greencastle Police Dispatch was seamlessly patched to mutual aid and other talkgroups accessible to Putnam County, Hendricks County, Morgan County, ISP, and IMPD. How would that have worked if Greencastle or Putnam County were on a separate, non-P25 system?

As DiGiTaLD, mentioned above, the whole idea behind SAFE-T was interoperability. Some counties, such as Marion, have built their own systems and carefully maintained interoperability with SAFE-T and surrounding counties. Is that always the case with these other standalone county systems?

Also, on a related subject, who is going to be financially responsible for upgrading the current county-funded simulcast cells from P25 Phase 1 to P25 Phase 2 when SAFE-T switches to Phase 2?

An excellent question. When SAFE-T goes to Phase 2, will IPSC allow islands of Phase 1 to operate on the system? I kinda doubt it. Is IPSC figuring that they will have to upgrade these county-purchased sites? I suspect that they are because once the county pays for the site, maintenance is an IPSC problem.

...the aging SAFE-T system...

I'm fairly confident that long-term maintenance and future upgrades are built-in to IPSC's funding plans. If they aren't, then we all have a problem.

 

[INDY72]

The future of IPSC is being planned and worked on. They just completed the upgrade to the latest ASTRO-25 firmware which IS fully TDMA ready, and all that is needed for the next step is the subscribers to update/upgrade. IPSC has already put out notice that NO NEW FDMA ONLY radios is to be put on the SAFE-T (All new TG's are able to be FDMA/TDMA, just need the "switch" flipped so to speak on the radios. Yes, this means anyone with older gear like XTS's will have to step up to APX'es and so on.). Thus the first steps to the TDMA transition are already in place. The priority for 2021 was the new firmware and updates. Also done with most of IDPSC, done when the radios and infrastructure were updated/replaced this past year on S1. S2 is starting the process of this also. S4 is updated, S3 I believe is also pretty much set up also. Over the next couple of years the next phases of transition will be rolling out. FirstNet is fully integrated in IPSC, so that is out of the way. Next on that list is if anyone wants to go the next level in hardware, such as APX NEXT. That will be a slow process as that gear is super expensive.