New York - WTC Squawkie Talkies

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lynch_Christopher

Member
Database Admin
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
815
Location
Bethpage, NY
Came across this article in the New York Post today that has to do with the Port Authority installing their own system at the World Trade Center site and how it may interfere with another system that the FDNY and the NYPD are currently installing at the site.

The spat between City Hall and the Port Authority over the design of a unified radio system for cops and firefighters at the new World Trade Center is costing taxpayers a cool $12 million, The Post has learned.
That’s because while the PA is building its own controversial radio system at the WTC — at a separate cost of $130 million to the bi-state agency — the city, rather than join in, is plunking down $12 million to unilaterally expand its own communications system at the site.
The city dough will come from money from federal counterterrorism grants already dispatched to Albany, sources said.
 

902

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,432
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
There are a couple of issues here that one can't pick up on from a skeletal newspaper article (what ever happened to "Who? What? Where? When? How? And Why?" in J school?). It's been a while, so some townies might want to jump in and set me straight if I'm wrong or out of date on anything.

First is that the Port Authority has had a 3 channel EDACS trunked system in the WTC since probably 1993. It was never fully deployed and most of the traffic in the mid 90s remained on UHF. The PA also has an EDACS system throughout the port district. In some cases, their equipment is mounted side by side with NYSP.

Second, with maybe the exception of OEM, NYC 800 operations are not responder services. If they weren't SmartNet, they could potentially have "interoperability" with the Taxi and Limousine Commission. Establishing band commonality will only be able to drop to conventional for "interoperability." I put "interoperability" in quotes because it means something different to everyone... the next question might be "Can interoperability be fixed by technology, or is it more a state of mind?" Followed by, "Is it really 'interoperability' we need, or good and reliable 'operability' with a commitment toward unified command?" In other parts of the country, some federal contractor outfits have been promoting interoperability to agencies that still have one-lunged "operability" radio systems for their internal use. I'm thinking there has to be a Maslow's hierarchy - "interoperability" can only be pursued if you first have "operability."

Third, the vision of communications in the City seems to be wanting to go toward 700 MHz LTE. That's one agency. Thanks to politics, the rest will have to give back most of their workable spectrum and be made whole elsewhere (if that's possible). I'm not sure how that will be interoperable with anything, unless everything from every agency will be on LTE (and then would the D Block and the adjacent public safety broadband subband be enough?).

Anyway, going P25 on both sides (City and PA) should fix it all, no?

The Post is about 5 years too late in writing this article. A lot of things are changing so fast that it might end up being a moot point beyond the 5 year plan.

Okay. I feel better now. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top