Report from MPD Chief Flynn to the Milwaukee Common Council on the status and outlook of MPD's troubled radio system.
http://badgerblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/OpenSky0001.pdf
http://badgerblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/OpenSky0001.pdf
OpenSky report from Milwaukee PD Chief to Common Council
- Thread starter mkescan
- Start date
- Status
JGP
Member
OpenSky Radio System
It looks like OpenSky is to be used in Milwaukee--like it or not. I hope for the Police Officers sake that the system does well for them in the end and hope the learning curve doesn't take too long for them to get used to. No one needs to die or get hurt over a radio system.
It looks like OpenSky is to be used in Milwaukee--like it or not. I hope for the Police Officers sake that the system does well for them in the end and hope the learning curve doesn't take too long for them to get used to. No one needs to die or get hurt over a radio system.
Nothing like trying to reward a contract at the end.
"The original RFPrequired 95% mobile and outdoor portable coverage across the service area
defined as the county. Portable in-building voice coverage (assuming 12 dB penetration loss for the
structures) is required by the RFPto be provided to at least 95% of the specified service area within the
legal boundaries of the City of Milwaukee. Federal Engineering will work with Harris and MPD to
determine the baseline coverage delivered by Harris and will also make recommendations on the best
way to improve coverage in marginal areas of the city. There are discussions currently taking place
between MPD and Harris about adding two additional repeater locations using existing towers to
improve overall coverage."
I like how the RFP goes from 95% within the county to 95% with in the legal city boundries.
Now they are thinking about installing BDAs when they should have known about the problem before. What lovely support MPD getts for the local shop.
"The original RFPrequired 95% mobile and outdoor portable coverage across the service area
defined as the county. Portable in-building voice coverage (assuming 12 dB penetration loss for the
structures) is required by the RFPto be provided to at least 95% of the specified service area within the
legal boundaries of the City of Milwaukee. Federal Engineering will work with Harris and MPD to
determine the baseline coverage delivered by Harris and will also make recommendations on the best
way to improve coverage in marginal areas of the city. There are discussions currently taking place
between MPD and Harris about adding two additional repeater locations using existing towers to
improve overall coverage."
I like how the RFP goes from 95% within the county to 95% with in the legal city boundries.
Now they are thinking about installing BDAs when they should have known about the problem before. What lovely support MPD getts for the local shop.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Maybe you are not reading this the same way I am.
Sounds like the original contract required;
1) 95% mobile coverage countywide.
2) 95% portable coverage, plus 12 dB margin for building penetration within the city.
The BDAs appear to be an additional solution to specific coverage issues not anticipated in the contract.
How is this any type of rewording?
This is all quite common.
Sounds like the original contract required;
1) 95% mobile coverage countywide.
2) 95% portable coverage, plus 12 dB margin for building penetration within the city.
The BDAs appear to be an additional solution to specific coverage issues not anticipated in the contract.
How is this any type of rewording?
This is all quite common.
Last edited:
Yes but they knew about some of the spots and they could have done a better job of testing.
I like this part...
"In hindsight, a police department the size of Milwaukee, which generates
approximately 28,00 push-to-talk transmissions each day, took a significant risk in being one of the first
major cities to move to this technology"
Why would a big city take a risk like that, when there were so many other choices out there?
"In hindsight, a police department the size of Milwaukee, which generates
approximately 28,00 push-to-talk transmissions each day, took a significant risk in being one of the first
major cities to move to this technology"
Why would a big city take a risk like that, when there were so many other choices out there?
N
N_Jay
Guest
Specific site testing is relatively uncommon due to the cost and difficulty.
Additionally, you end up testing the places that the old system had problems and missing other places that were fine and now have issues.
Other agencies do it. Washington county did specific site testing for their new P25 system.
This project was a cluster **** from the begining. Too bad they are to deep into now.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Some, but very few do it that way.
It is expensive and contrary to some opinions the agency does pay for testing in the purchase price.
It is also not a panacea, since the building you test are only a sample, and you are just as likely to have issues with other buildings not tested.
Also, as new building are built there would be no provision to retroactively test.
Maybe so (maybe not), but that is a different issue.
- Status
