Why Oakland County
BT said:
... I don't entirely understand why they would choose M/A Com when everyone ( and I do mean EVERYONE) around them is using or moving to the state's APCO 25 system. I realize it's about the lowest bidder, but it just doesn't make sense. Guess that's why I'm not in politics.
Brent
From
Oakland County
Why did we go with the M/A Com system over the Motorola (or MSP) system?
The Radio Oversight Committee developed the specifications for a digital, Voice over IP system that would provide extensive in-building portable coverage and interoperability among all Oakland County agencies. It was also considered desirable that the system would utilize the County's fiber optic network for connectivity, affording greater reliability than microwave. Lastly, the system needed to maximize the efficiency of the relatively few frequencies that were available in Southeastern Michigan.
The MPSCS was evaluated. The MPSCS, which was designed for mobile only coverage, did not meet the in-building coverage requirements without an extensive addition of tower sites and frequencies. The State required that the County turn all frequencies over to them, with a promise that they would be returned should the County ever leave the MPSCS. However, once the frequencies are licensed by the State and reused throughout their network, there would be very little likelihood of returning them. Coupled with the user fees that the State required, and connectivity issues for the dispatch centers, this option was eliminated, and the County rejected the State's proposal.
M/A COM was the only system that met the specifications of the Radio Oversight Committee. It is the only system that is truly end-to-end digital voice over IP capable of utilizing the fiber optic network. Because it is IP based, it is also capable of transmitting data as well as voice communications. It uses TDMA technology, dividing each frequency into four time slots, so that four conversations can occur simultaneously on each channel. The other vendors offered traditional FDMA, or one conversation per channel. With the other vendors, our 32 frequencies would have resulted in a maximum of 31 simultaneous transmissions, since one channel is dedicated to a control channel. With the MA COM system, the same 32 frequencies can allow 128 simultaneous transmissions, more than quadrupling the system capacity.
