Questions about 700 MHz radio systems

[W7FDX]

Be careful who you get "expert" advice from on these forums. Just because a person can create an account, rack up a post count and use big words doesn't mean he's qualified to engineer public safety radio systems.

Most of the folks here have never been involved on what happens on the transmitter side of things and only run their mouth to improve their ego. They may attend a public meeting and think they are qualified to answer everybody's communications needs, even though they don't know anything about it.

When a RR user posts nothing but anti-government, "corrupt this and corrupt that" and other things of the sort it sets off a red flag to me. Makes me wonder they they even are on the site.

Just be careful who you consider to be "experts" on here, you may be getting bad information.

I don't claim to know alot about these trunking systems I was just giving my advice to the best of my ability. Just wanted to get that out there haha.

 

[rapidcharger]

Be careful who you get "expert" advice from on these forums. Just because a person can create an account, rack up a post count and use big words doesn't mean he's qualified to engineer public safety radio systems.

It certainly doesn't mean "he's qualified to engineer public safety radio systems" but the OP wasn't asking for someone to engineer a public radio system. If you're referring to me, I am more than qualified to answer the OP's question and so far nobody has debated a single thing I've said in response to the questions. Are you disagreeing with something I've written here? Or are you just taking jabs to be a troll?

Speaking of answering questions, I'm still waiting... it's been 4 days since I asked what your qualifications were and what I was giving bad information about. Then you conveniently disappeared. You go first then I'll give you a complete run down of my qualifications. I'll try to use smaller words so you can better understand without having to look everything up in a dictionary.

 

[Linn]

I can tell you my experience from being involved in migrating from VHF to 700 MHz. I work in (but not for) Johnson County, Texas.

About 2 years ago the county switched from VHF analog to a 700 MHz system. The county is just south of Fort Worth and on the fringe of the DFW Metroplex. There is considerable growth in the area and the need for additional voice communication capacity was necessary. Because of our location there is congestion on VHF frequencies and additional frequencies were hard to obtain.

In addition to the congestion the Sheriff's Office VHF channel was plagued with interference from skip. It was not uncommon during certain times of the day for deputies to have to repeat their traffic multiple times because they were being covered by skip.

Besides the interference problem the "system" only had one site and the coverage in most of the county was horrible with a portable radios and car radios did not work in some places. The county added a repeater in the east side of the county and linked it to the main repeater. This helped in some ways, but this repeater frequency was very close to a frequency used by the Dallas County Sheriff's Office and as a result their was interference.

Other cities in the county used VHF and had coverage issues because they did not have "systems", they would put an antenna/repeater on a water tower and be done with it. This did not provide the best coverage in town let alone when they would have to travel to the county jail in another part of the county.

My agency was on VHF with one repeated channel and there were large parts of town where portable radios were not reliable including major shopping areas. We also experienced interference from skip. During the migration we chose to purchase dual band (VHF/700/800) radios for several reasons:

1. We purchased radios before we migrated so they needed to work on VHF.
2. Interoperabilty-Some surrounding counties are still on VHF. State and federal agencies are on VHF although the state is putting dual band APX radios in service
3. As a backup-Our VHF repeater is still in service and while it's rare gets used from time to time.

Working with various agencies in the county we came up with a plan to migrate to 700 MHz. The county paid for the system and users pay users fees to use the system. The system is a 3 site simulcast. Because of this all of the system users now pretty much have countywide coverage with portable radios. There some places with coverage issues and those are being addressed, but the coverage and clarity blows away what anyone was using before. The coverage is so good that the volunteer fire departments are working off of portable radios.

In addition to the countywide coverage we have coverage into parts of surrounding counties. The juvenile detention facility is in another county and we are able to communicate from there. It is not uncommon for us to go into Tarrant County and coverage extends significantly into it.

We also have more channel capacity. We went from having one repeated VHF channel to having multiple talk groups. Over time our officers have learned to use these other talk groups for special events etc. to keep the main dispatch channel from being tied up.

Our system is a subsystem of the Fort Worth Regional Radio System. There are dedicated interoperability talk groups on the system that roam among the subsystems allowing system users to seamlessly communicate across vast parts of the Metroplex, especially on mobiles.

Using a mobile radio I have been able to talk into the system from Waco on interoperabilty talk groups. While I have not personally tested I know that it's possible to talk into the system on a mobile from at least northern Denton County. This means a large part of the I35 corridor in North Texas is covered by this system.

On the cost question. We were fortunate and got some good discounts on our radios from Motorola. Even with the discounts we still paid about $3500 per radio and we didn't get any bells and whistles. I know other agencies have gotten better deals. There are other vendors that make P25 equipment and they don't tend to be as expensive and Motorola.

Training is a big issue. The radios are not necessarily complicated to use most of the time. Where we run into problems is teaching system users the capabilities of the system and how to use them. Even though every public safety system user now has direct access to every dispatch center on the system via dedicated interoperabilty calling talk groups they are not commonly used. To help with this he have created a class and will start teaching it later this month.

As far as reliability, our 700 MHz system has been more reliable than the VHF system because we are able to talk. Is the system more complicated? It sure is, simply because it's a simulcast trunked system.

There have been and still are hiccups related to the system. Encryption is one of them. But I can tell you most everyone that used the VHF systems and now uses the 700 system are pleased with the 700 system.

 

[R8000]

Speaking of answering questions, I'm still waiting... it's been 4 days since I asked what your qualifications were and what I was giving bad information about. Then you conveniently disappeared.

No thanks. I asked you in the Isle of Man discussion and you decided to not answer. That's fine, I too shall do the same.

I have seen your replies in other discussions, and most of them are about corrupt governments, slick salesmen or some other type of negative attitude towards government and money. If I am wrong, then I'd love to hear your side of the story.

 

[R8000]

Using a mobile radio I have been able to talk into the system from Waco

I attended a training class with the radio system administrator from Waco, nice fellow. Loves his system.

 

[rapidcharger]

I think Linn's post is great post about that experience and it brings up a lot of common issues. I have some follow up questions if Linn would be so kind as to pop back in.

Because of our location there is congestion on VHF frequencies and additional frequencies were hard to obtain.
In addition to the congestion the Sheriff's Office VHF channel was plagued with interference from skip. It was not uncommon during certain times of the day for deputies to have to repeat their traffic multiple times because they were being covered by skip. )))

These are common reasons for upgrading from a basic analog conventional system in VHF to a 700/800 mHz trunking system. However I have to wonder if anything in between the two was considered. For example, did your county consider migrating to 450 mHz instead? That should clear up the skip problem, provide more frequencies, frequencies that are generally easier to coordinate too because of the standard 5mHz offset, and it would require less infrastructure than 700/800. Or for that matter, did your county investigate using analog conventional or digital conventional in 700/800?

(((Other cities in the county used VHF and had coverage issues because they did not have "systems", they would put an antenna/repeater on a water tower and be done with it. This did not provide the best coverage in town let alone when they would have to travel to the county jail in another part of the county.)))

Despite not having "the best" coverage in town, was it adequate considering the need and budgetary limitations?

(((My agency was on VHF with one repeated channel and there were large parts of town where portable radios were not reliable including major shopping areas. We also experienced interference from skip. During the migration we chose to purchase dual band (VHF/700/800) radios for several reasons:

1. We purchased radios before we migrated so they needed to work on VHF.
2. Interoperabilty-Some surrounding counties are still on VHF. State and federal agencies are on VHF although the state is putting dual band APX radios in service
3. As a backup-Our VHF repeater is still in service and while it's rare gets used from time to time.
)))

Do you find that you are getting your money's worth out of having dual band radios considering they cost a lot more than if you have two separate radios? Was it worth the price tag of that dual band radio in order to occasionally use VHF?

((( The county paid for the system and users pay users fees to use the system.)))

Do you recall the price paid for the system and how much the user fees are?

((( The system is a 3 site simulcast. Because of this all of the system users now pretty much have countywide coverage with portable radios. )))

How imperative is it that portable radio coverage is available throughout the entire county?

(((The coverage is so good that the volunteer fire departments are working off of portable radios.)))

If given the choice, do you reckon the volunteer fire fighters would rather use those new APX portable radios throughout the county or do you think they would instead prefer to use a cheaper analog radio on a conventional radio system BUT the tradeoff would be that they also receive a salary for putting their lives on the line?

(((Our system is a subsystem of the Fort Worth Regional Radio System. There are dedicated interoperability talk groups on the system that roam among the subsystems allowing system users to seamlessly communicate across vast parts of the Metroplex, especially on mobiles. )))

There has always been seamless communication, especially on mobiles using mutual aid channels.

Recognizing that that it's a shared radio system and therefore your county did not foot the bill for the entire thing, if your county had to pay a lot more for a standalone system like the one you're sharing, do you think it would be worth it for the benefits have?

(((On the cost question. We were fortunate and got some good discounts on our radios from Motorola. Even with the discounts we still paid about $3500 per radio and we didn't get any bells and whistles. )))

Do you know that is 5-6 times the cost of a public safety grade portable radio, even one with digital capability such as DMR or NXDN which are used in a growing number of police departments?

And of course the price of the subscriber units is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the infrastructure and upgrades. I mean... if it took you that long to get off a single channel VHF system, what's going to happen in 7-8 years when what you got is no longer supported?

((( I know other agencies have gotten better deals. There are other vendors that make P25 equipment and they don't tend to be as expensive and Motorola.)))

Why then didn't anyone shop around for a better price and get competing bids from other vendors?

((( Is the system more complicated? It sure is, simply because it's a simulcast trunked system. )))

If there was a natural disaster to strike your area, such as a tornado, which your area is at a very high risk of having, and a couple of your sites were knocked offline, is there someone available locally to get it back on the air or will it involve a team of IT guys to fly in from Illinois to get it back online?

 

[rapidcharger]

I have seen your replies in other discussions, and most of them are about corrupt governments, slick salesmen or some other type of negative attitude towards government and money. If I am wrong, then I'd love to hear your side of the story.

You're right. If my replies appear more focused on the dollars and cents rather than on the technical aspects, it's because that is my area of expertise. I'm a dollars and cents guy. My education is also in business as well as state & local government and I've been in a mass communications business for a long time and was exposed to corruption and incompetence within governments at a relatively young age. (I started my business during my sophomore year of college)

There's really only 3 things you need to know about my qualifications.

1.) I'm highly adept at 3rd grade arithmetic. I can do basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I make no guarantees about my math abilities beyond the third grade but 3rd grade math, I've got that down pat.

2.) Most of what I've learned about a particular radio system, I've learned about reading articles and forum posts right here on this very informative website, Radio Reference. The moderators do a good job ensuring that quality information gets through and I read those articles very carefully and I also read the viewpoints posted by members with an open mind. I don't profess to know it all and I am eager to learn more. That's why I ask a lot of questions and refrain from making personal attacks or tell people they don't know what they're talking about.

3.) I'm a taxpayer. And as a taxpayer, I have the right to be critical of and question how public funds are being spent.

I sense that you want very badly to discredit me and that's fine. I'm used to that, believe me. I have people do that to me all day long. But for your own sake, if you want to come across as someone who is smarter and you want to educate me on something you think I'm mistaken about, then please use that opportunity to do so. I will be grateful for that. But you'll still have to tell me what exactly it is that I'm wrong about. I'm not a mind reader.

 

[AZScanner]

It also begs the question, why the heck does a town with only 26,000 people need a trunking system to begin with? I can't understand why they would have all that many users or have a need for so many talk groups.. They don't need a "system".... they need a repeater. And maybe not even that. Reusing frequencies is a common excuse given but a town that would otherwise use one or two frequencies is now going to have 5 or more additional. Way to conserve spectrum.

Haven't you noticed the big, mostly FEDERAL push for even the tiniest of local agencies to go to these boondoggle digital systems for "interoperability" reasons? I have a theory as to what the real reason is, and it involves the eventual full time encryption of all public safety comms. I still say that day is coming, and I point to little podunks spending millions of FEDERAL GRANT DOLLARS on these P25 systems as evidence.

-AZ

 

[12dbsinad]

Of course there is a big push for digital trunked systems, even when one really isn't needed. Does anyone here think that large vendors are going to suggest analog conventional systems anymore? No way! There is NO profit in it for them anymore, and it leaves it to vunerable for other vendors to step in. The only way that decisions happen that make sense for the needs of an agency are those people who are radio savy,understand it and are not in it for personal gain. Those people are far and few between.

 

[Linn]

I think Linn's post is great post about that experience and it brings up a lot of common issues. I have some follow up questions if Linn would be so kind as to pop back in.

These are common reasons for upgrading from a basic analog conventional system in VHF to a 700/800 mHz trunking system. However I have to wonder if anything in between the two was considered. For example, did your county consider migrating to 450 mHz instead? That should clear up the skip problem, provide more frequencies, frequencies that are generally easier to coordinate too because of the standard 5mHz offset, and it would require less infrastructure than 700/800. Or for that matter, did your county investigate using analog conventional or digital conventional in 700/800?

We did not consider UHF for the simple reason that UHF is not widely used in the area. One county with a small population adjoins us is and is UHF but has dual band UHF/VHF capabilities. There are several smaller jurisdictions in Tarrant County that are UHF. A little further away is Dallas. They are UHF, but also have an 800 system and dual band radios on UHF/700/800.

Frequency coordination was not an issue on 700 MHz. The state has allocated 700 MHz frequencies on a county level so all we had to do was ask for some of our allocated frequencies.

We did not consider analog conventional on 700 MHz because it is reserved for P25 trunking with the exception of some interop frequencies. While 800 MHz may be open to analog it too must be trunked and I don't believe vendors are selling analog systems on 800 MHz anymore.

Originally the spec for the system was VHF. When we discussed 700 MHz the engineers found that we would get the same or better coverage on 700 MHz as we would with the same infrastructure on VHF. Real world use has shown the coverage maps to have underestimated the coverage the system has provided.

A state interoperability document showed that most public safety subscriber radios in Texas were on VHF or 800 MHz.

Also due to future growth considerations we wanted our communications to be able to integrate into that of Tarrant County/Fort Worth.

Despite not having "the best" coverage in town, was it adequate considering the need and budgetary limitations?

Our handheld coverage in town was pathetic. We could not talk from places that we frequently had calls at, and it was even worse for deputies.

Do you find that you are getting your money's worth out of having dual band radios considering they cost a lot more than if you have two separate radios? Was it worth the price tag of that dual band radio in order to occasionally use VHF?

The ability to talk on VHF/700/800 with one radio will be priceless in the event of a major incident. I'll elaborate more on this below.

Do you recall the price paid for the system and how much the user fees are?

I don't recall the cost of the system. I was not involved in that part since the county actually paid for it, but it was in the neighborhood of $4 million. The user fees are $12 month/per radio.

How imperative is it that portable radio coverage is available throughout the entire county?

As a first responder I don't have to have the best, but I would like adequate. I don't think asking for portable radio coverage throughout most of the county is too much for a first responder to ask for.

If given the choice, do you reckon the volunteer fire fighters would rather use those new APX portable radios throughout the county or do you think they would instead prefer to use a cheaper analog radio on a conventional radio system BUT the tradeoff would be that they also receive a salary for putting their lives on the line?

I can't speak for the volunteer fire fighters, and I don't even think that is a fair question to ask. I can tell you that the fire fighters I talk to love the system.

There has always been seamless communication, especially on mobiles using mutual aid channels.

I beg to differ. When I first became interested in radio communications in the early 90's Fort Worth PD was UHF, Fort Worth Fire was 800 conventional, the Tarrant County Sheriff's Office was on low band, Dallas PD was UHF, Dallas Fire was VHF, there were a couple of 800 trunked systems and other agencies in the area were scattered across VHF and UHF. So while there were statewide VHF inter city channels in place the system didn't work.

Since we have moved to the system our officers have worked special events with Dallas, Fort Worth and other agencies at the same time using 800 MHz interop channels. Just a few years ago this would not have been possible.

Recognizing that that it's a shared radio system and therefore your county did not foot the bill for the entire thing, if your county had to pay a lot more for a standalone system like the one you're sharing, do you think it would be worth it for the benefits have?

My personal opinion is that even if the system cost more it would be worth it. The system allows first responders to better respond to the needs of our citizens. Not only am I first responder I'm a taxpayer too.

Do you know that is 5-6 times the cost of a public safety grade portable radio, even one with digital capability such as DMR or NXDN which are used in a growing number of police departments?

I am fully aware of the expense of P25 radios. The State of Texas has chosen P25 as the standard. While we could have chosen another digital format we would not have followed the standard and would have contributed to a breakdown in the state interoperability channel plan.

And of course the price of the subscriber units is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the infrastructure and upgrades. I mean... if it took you that long to get off a single channel VHF system, what's going to happen in 7-8 years when what you got is no longer supported?

Once we determined that we needed to get off of the single channel VHF system it didn't take much time to move. In fact in went pretty fast. Having said that I am confident that the current system will be alive and well in 7-8 years. One of the purposes of user fees is to keep the system up to date.

Why then didn't anyone shop around for a better price and get competing bids from other vendors?

You've made an assumption, agencies have shopped around. There are or soon will be radios from other vendors than Motorola on the system.

If there was a natural disaster to strike your area, such as a tornado, which your area is at a very high risk of having, and a couple of your sites were knocked offline, is there someone available locally to get it back on the air or will it involve a team of IT guys to fly in from Illinois to get it back online?

It's interesting that you mention a tornado. We had one in May of last year, it caused significant damage but we were fortunate and didn't have any fatalities. We were still on VHF at the time, but the 700 MHz system was on line and in use by the Sheriff's Office. Our VHF channel was quickly overwhelmed with traffic. Fortunately we had our 700 MHz talk groups in our radios. We moved some traffic off of VHF and onto the 700 MHz system. This relieved congestion on our VHF channel and allowed Sheriff's Deputies to communicate with us. In the following days we had resources from around the area including federal and state agencies. We were able to communicate on VHF with the federal and state agencies, on the 700 MHz system with local and regional resources and 800 interop with some other agencies. So before we transitioned to the 700 MHz system we showed the value in having dual band capabilities.

As far as having someone local being able to work on the system, there are local resources. But again, because we have capabilities on VHF/700/800 while we are waiting for repairs to be made we could use whatever communications resources were available to include portable repeaters on various bands that are in the region to establish communications.

 

[Thunderknight]

Despite not having "the best" coverage in town, was it adequate considering the need and budgetary limitations?

In public safety, that can be the difference between life and death.
Do YOU want to be the EMT on a call when the patient flips out and you find your radio coverage isn't "the best"? How about a deputy with someone at gunpoint who has to get his cell phone out and dial dispatch (assuming there is cell coverage) and ask for backup (and the incoming officers have to have all the details relayed through the dispatcher).

 

[R8000]

You're right. If my replies appear more focused on the dollars and cents rather than on the technical aspects, it's because that is my area of expertise. I'm a dollars and cents guy.

That's fine. I do see where you seem to go a bit overboard with it. Most users here don't really want to be involved in the money side of things and find it a bit boring hearing the same routine over and over...."race to waste" ..etc. Most users here just want to monitor systems and hear the geeky side of radio things. You have to admit, at least I am being truthful with you here and not beating around the bush.

2.) Most of what I've learned about a particular radio system, I've learned about reading articles and forum posts right here on this very informative website, Radio Reference.

Yes, there are some good bits of info here, can't argue with that. There is also some bad info flowing as well. At times, when this bad info gets on a roll it spreads like wildfire. Like some others I have made a career in designing and maintaining public safety communication systems. I see a lot on here, and I normally just sit back and watch, most times I kind of have to due to conflict of interests. Sometimes I need to say something. Honestly, if it wasn't for your negative "race to waste" comments, we wouldn't be having this conversation. A honest suggestion ? Maybe try toning down the corruption, "race to waste" and your dislike for manufacturers. Something are best kept offline, kinda like politics and religion. Just a suggestion, wasn't intended to come off nasty.

3.) I'm a taxpayer. And as a taxpayer, I have the right to be critical of and question how public funds are being spent.

Yea, you do have the right to be wondering, not gonna argue there. I just think this isn't the site to be going into detail about waste, grants, budgets and stuff. Most users are end users that have zero input on this, and it just confuses people. I am not sure about opening up eyes..more like just causing more confusion.

This isn't aimed towards just you, but I have noticed others chime in with hatred towards certain manufactures. Everyone has their right to like what they want, but bashing them just doesn't accomplish anything. You won't believe me on this, but there are times when...ready for this....a customer (local/state government) will ask a vendor for a specific type of system and the vendor will provide what the customer asks for. I learned early on about how valuable a good public safety communications consultant is. A good one is worth every penny. They protect both the customer and the vendor. When I hear of a system going downhill from day one I will ask if a consultant is involved, if not...oh well. If so, then there is some fallback here.

Almost all the consultants I dealt with wrote the RFP, made up the specs..etc. The vendor has to meet those specs to get paid for the job. If the consultant didn't know what he was doing and made up bad specs...you can't fault the vendor for this. (this happens a lot). A local county here hired a poor consultant, and also went the cheap route due to the good buddy system and...well...the system is going on three years overdue, and is now costing just as much as the original bid from the better vendor. Recent media coverage of officer safety issues and the overdue system got things back on track.

 

[zz0468]

There's really only 3 things you need to know about my qualifications.

1.) I'm highly adept at 3rd grade arithmetic...

2.) Most of what I've learned about a particular radio system, I've learned about reading articles and forum posts right here on this very informative website, Radio Reference...

3.) I'm a taxpayer. And as a taxpayer, I have the right to be critical of and question how public funds are being spent.

None of these things qualifies you for anything regarding public safety radio systems other than to render an opinion. No guarantee as to whether said opinion is an informed one or not. What's missing from your opinions, generally, is the facts as to why a given system was designed and built the way it was.

 

[zz0468]

...they don't bother to find out or ask any questions such as "If it's obsolete, why is it working so well?" or "Why has it worked so well for so long?"

The answer to that question is frequently due to highly talented and dedicated technical staff, and a creative purchasing agent who allows a public entity to purchase used spare parts on eBay.

Is THAT what you want your public safety people to rely on?

 

[rapidcharger]

Linn, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
I'm short on time today and I will make my responses brief, and for the most part, final. Please don't view them as being argumentative, I'm just trying to make a point.

We did not consider UHF for the simple reason that UHF is not widely used in the area.)))

That is a very simple reason indeed.
Isn't that why you wanted to migrate to another band... due to congestion? You would have had a band wide open for you to use and it might have saved a lot of money.

(((Originally the spec for the system was VHF. When we discussed 700 MHz the engineers found that we would get the same or better coverage on 700 MHz as we would with the same infrastructure on VHF. )))

Of course, you are in flat, treeless, buildingless (for the most part) terrain and you're using an adequate number of sites. But compare the infrastructure to what you had on VHF, a single site and having to stretch that signal beyond the horizon and then lets see what the engineers say.

(((
A state interoperability document showed that most public safety subscriber radios in Texas were on VHF or 800 MHz.)))

All the more reason to use 450mHz

(((I don't recall the cost of the system. I was not involved in that part since the county actually paid for it, but it was in the neighborhood of $4 million. The user fees are $12 month/per radio.)))

I know that you said you didn't recall the cost of the system so I won't hold you to that $4mil figure but that sounds way low. If that is indeed the cost, then you got a comparatively low price on that considering what most have paid. If that is the price, you've come in around half of the lowest average price for a 7/800 DTRS.

But then again, that's Johnson County. On the surface it would appear as though $4000000 could be easily afforded by the county and no need to look at any other possibilities that might have saved even more money. Then again your schools are running huge deficits and you're not even paying your (or all your) firefighters. It's not a high income area to begin with and I'm going to guess that a substantial amount of revenue is derived from the oil industry.

I get that you NEEDED to do something about the radio system that you had. But it also sounds like there are a lot of WANTS in what you ended up with. Spending money on WANTS is one thing when you've got the money to do so but if you don't, just like with individuals, you have to live within your means and buy just the NEEDS.

I liken a lot of these purchases who are in places that are in much worse financial shape to be like a 30 something guy who doesn't have a job, still lives at home with mom and dad but has a kid and child support to pay and he doesn't have health insurance and he has a mountain of credit card debt but he spends hours a day shopping around for high priced video game consoles and cars. He's obviously got a lot of NEEDS but he's focused only on the WANTS.

(((As a first responder I don't have to have the best, but I would like adequate. I don't think asking for portable radio coverage throughout most of the county is too much for a first responder to ask for.)))

I would agree however it's not just portable coverage. Remember, it's body-worn, in building portable coverage. That's what you paid for, isn't it? First responders cannot be troubled with taking the radio off their belt or wearing the radio on their shoulders like in most other countries. They have to use RSMs and can't be troubled with ever taking the radio off their belt.

(((I can't speak for the volunteer fire fighters, and I don't even think that is a fair question to ask. I can tell you that the fire fighters I talk to love the system.)))

I didn't ask if the firefighters loved the system.
I asked if the firefighters would prefer a scenario where they are receiving a salary instead of volunteering but the catch is they have to use cheaper radios. It's a great question to ask and it all sort of goes back to the question of priorities. I'm not saying your county in particular, because I don't have enough information to go on there but for many counties they have much bigger needs and they may feel like they've got money to blow but they aren't even compensating their firefighters meanwhile their firefighters are walking around with radios that cost several thousand dollars each.

(((
So while there were statewide VHF inter city channels in place the system didn't work.

Since we have moved to the system our officers have worked special events with Dallas, Fort Worth and other agencies at the same time using 800 MHz interop channels. Just a few years ago this would not have been possible.
)))

It is my understanding that in order for interoperability to work, willing participants and the right attitude must be present. Without that, you could spend all the millions you want and you'll still never get it.

(((My personal opinion is that even if the system cost more it would be worth it. The system allows first responders to better respond to the needs of our citizens. Not only am I first responder I'm a taxpayer too.)))

Yes, you are a first responder and a taxpayer but you aren't a bean counter. Therein lies the problem in local government.
You have all the people who want this and want that. You have the special interests like contractors/vendors, You have the actual needs of the county and then the part that's absolutely no fun, which is figuring out how to pay for it all.

(((I am fully aware of the expense of P25 radios. The State of Texas has chosen P25 as the standard. While we could have chosen another digital format we would not have followed the standard and would have contributed to a breakdown in the state interoperability channel plan.)))

If the state wants local governments to buy things they don't need and to live outside their means, then the state should pay for it. Judging by how in the red your schools are, I'm guessing they're not going to offer enough. Until they have provided sound reasons for moving to a particular standard, common sense should overrule any of that.

(((Once we determined that we needed to get off of the single channel VHF system it didn't take much time to move. In fact in went pretty fast. )))

Oh I know those systems get built out very fast. My point was it's taken you eons to migrate from your broken single tac VHF repeater to something adequate. All this time you have described not being able to communicate. If its taken so long just to get the wheels spinning, what's going to happen when it's time to upgrade this, now, much more expensive system?

(((Having said that I am confident that the current system will be alive and well in 7-8 years. One of the purposes of user fees is to keep the system up to date.)))

Motorola themselves, have said publicly that you have to think about these P25 systems differently than you have in the past. You're going to have to adjust and adapt to the changing life cycle of these systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUiPmqcM3YE

The network core is all computers/IP based and not designed for 20-30 year life cycle like analog switches and the like. Not even the radios are designed to last as long. They're computers too.

If you can get a computer to last longer than 8 years, you've done well for yourself. Most people can't or if they can, they work very poorly by that time. So you're going to have to replace and upgrade stuff much sooner than you did before. If you got 30 years out of the last radio system, don't count on the current one lasting anywhere near that long. You need to start budgeting for its replacement.... YESTERDAY. And from the sounds of it, the State of Texas can mandate something at any time and you will be prompted to comply with it. Who knows what that will be now? Did you know they would ask of you to migrate to P25 a decade before you actually did it?

(((It's interesting that you mention a tornado. We had one in May of last year, it caused significant damage but we were fortunate and didn't have any fatalities. We were still on VHF at the time, but the 700 MHz system was on line and in use by the Sheriff's Office. Our VHF channel was quickly overwhelmed with traffic. Fortunately we had our 700 MHz talk groups in our radios. We moved some traffic off of VHF and onto the 700 MHz system. This relieved congestion on our VHF channel and allowed Sheriff's Deputies to communicate with us. In the following days we had resources from around the area including federal and state agencies. We were able to communicate on VHF with the federal and state agencies, on the 700 MHz system with local and regional resources and 800 interop with some other agencies. So before we transitioned to the 700 MHz system we showed the value in having dual band capabilities.)))

Right, but single channel that is quickly overwhelmed but workable.
You didn't have to remain with a single channel. You could have added many new channels for less money but with the added piece of mind that in a disaster scenario, you'd have something you could actually use and not have to rely on ham radio operators to pass traffic for you.

(((But again, because we have capabilities on VHF/700/800 while we are waiting for repairs to be made we could use whatever communications resources were available to include portable repeaters on various bands that are in the region to establish communications.

Ah... so you'll be maintaining multiple redundant radio systems. I'm sure the school teachers that are having to buy supplies out of their own pocket because the public schools don't have enough money will be thrilled to know that.

 

[rapidcharger]

None of these things qualifies you for anything regarding public safety radio systems other than to render an opinion.)))

That's great news because opinions are the only thing I'm offering. :wink:

((( No guarantee as to whether said opinion is an informed one or not. What's missing from your opinions, generally, is the facts as to why a given system was designed and built the way it was.

Well that's because I do not make comments on why a given system was designed and built the way it was. I only make comments on the common sense and financial related aspects that so many seem to leave out of the discussion.

The answer to that question is frequently due to highly talented and dedicated technical staff, and a creative purchasing agent who allows a public entity to purchase used spare parts on eBay.

Is THAT what you want your public safety people to rely on?

No, I wouldn't. But on the same token I think first responders deserve to get paid for putting their lives on the line and that should be a priority just the same instead of blowing millions on a DTRS when there are alternatives that are clearly not even considered

In public safety, that can be the difference between life and death.
Do YOU want to be the EMT on a call when the patient flips out and you find your radio coverage isn't "the best"? How about a deputy with someone at gunpoint who has to get his cell phone out and dial dispatch (assuming there is cell coverage) and ask for backup (and the incoming officers have to have all the details relayed through the dispatcher).

Even with digital trunking 800mHz systems, cops are still having to pull out their cell phones. It happened to me the last time I was pulled over in a traffic stop.
The question is given that your budget is finite, can a reasonably adequate level of coverage be the compromise?

 

[rapidcharger]

... and I normally just sit back and watch, most times I kind of have to due to conflict of interests.

You called me out as "giving bad information". I have asked repeatedly to tell me what I said that was incorrect and so far you haven't been able to provide an answer to that question. 10 Days later... still now answer.

(((A honest suggestion ? Maybe try toning down the corruption, "race to waste" and your dislike for manufacturers. Something are best kept offline, kinda like politics and religion. Just a suggestion, wasn't intended to come off nasty. )))

Here's a suggestion, if all you have are personal attacks and don't wish to contribute to the conversation except to tell people they're a stupidhead, then please remember that submitting a reply on the forum is strictly optional.

I'm not the only one commenting on the corruption and incompetence in these buying decisions. The forum is full of us. and you have a problem with that because you work in an industry that is supported by corruption and poor decisions. I get it. Believe me. We ALL get it.

As for politics and religion... this forum's got a room for both of those too.

You also brought up that this site is for scanner enthusiasts. Yep. It sure is. And these race to waste systems are killing our hobby. It sounds like you are playing a role in that but since you haven't told us what specifically, that role is, all I can do is guess.

(((Yea, you do have the right to be wondering, not gonna argue there. I just think this isn't the site to be going into detail about waste, grants, budgets and stuff.)))

Then can you recommend a site that is more suitable?

((( You won't believe me on this, but there are times when...ready for this....a customer (local/state government) will ask a vendor for a specific type of system and the vendor will provide what the customer asks for.)))

Yes, and I am well aware of this. And this makes me question whether you have ever actually read any of my posts.

(((
Almost all the consultants I dealt with wrote the RFP, made up the specs..etc. The vendor has to meet those specs to get paid for the job. If the consultant didn't know what he was doing and made up bad specs...you can't fault the vendor for this. (this happens a lot). A local county here hired a poor consultant, and also went the cheap route due to the good buddy system and...well...the system is going on three years overdue, and is now costing just as much as the original bid from the better vendor. Recent media coverage of officer safety issues and the overdue system got things back on track.

There also has to be a due diligence period and many questions have to be asked and many things should be considered even when using consultants. This isn't happening.

 

[zz0468]

No, I wouldn't. But on the same token I think first responders deserve to get paid for putting their lives on the line and that should be a priority just the same instead of blowing millions on a DTRS when there are alternatives that are clearly not even considered

The funding sources for personnel are frequently different from the funding sources for capital projects like radio systems. Cutting an expensive system isn't an automatic guarantee that the people will get paid better. In fact, it's likely that it won't make a damned bit of difference.

The question is given that your budget is finite, can a reasonably adequate level of coverage be the compromise?

That's a valid question, and there is more than one valid answer to it. I'm a fan of 95/95 coverage, but yes, it can be expensive. In that case, combined trunked and conventional resources can make sense. You don't need 28 trunked channels to cover jack rabbit habitat. But you do need SOMETHING, because people do stupid sh*t in places like that.

 

[SCPD]

Dtrs is a inevitable push. There is many on conv and it'll take long time but in end it'll all be toward the big dtrs plan. In a perfect world everyone would switch overnight but like many have said it comes to costs politics etc. Inevitably the dtrs of 7/800 will be in every Podunk town to mega metro. Where capable obviously thus the use of a dual band radio whether it is vhf or uhf in the hills. The area I am in has been pushing it back and back. But they even said eventually down the road it'll have to happen as they are projecting it a requirement public safety is 700. They are aware they are saving now running vhf but Down road either it's going to cost more for waiting or maybe they'll strike a contract deal. There is a couple reasons it hasn't been migrated yet but slowly those are being self cared of. It is a inevitable deal the 700 dtrs. I wouldn't doubt by then 700 dtrs will be the basic and a new dual band will replace the 700 vhf or uhf radios with new technology. When El paso county had motorola come down they pushed for 700 but county said vhf is fine. They will use vhf as there ops but have apx duals and be able to interop on the city and Texas State future dtrs while being interop with anyone not capable of any 700 yet. The apx and dual band lines are the foot in door to dtrs transitions across the country. TX dps has been outfitting slowly replacing xts series 5000s with apx 7/800 vhf some with uhf option in cities still using uhf mostly vhf though. In the end the goal I believe is a mass nationwide dtrs system. And like one comment above a ways you bet the dreadful topic is part of it down that roads end entirely.

 

[rapidcharger]

The funding sources for personnel are frequently different from the funding sources for capital projects like radio systems. Cutting an expensive system isn't an automatic guarantee that the people will get paid better. In fact, it's likely that it won't make a damned bit of difference.

They are frequently different, then again they frequently aren't. The next town over went and blew 5 million dollars so their 58 man SO can have a DTRS (that works poorly) meanwhile the sheriff has made headlines for complaining he does not have money to put gas in patrol cars and feed inmates in the jail. We've also had numerous articles cross the threshold here that talk about how local option sales tax, which would often go to infrastructure improvements with a much greater benefit to society instead being spent to buy radio system upgrades. Not the radio system but their UPGRADES. And because that is an additional sales tax, that has a far reaching impact on the local economy and what people spend, particularly lower income people who are hit harder and end up paying a greater chunk of their earnings for radio system upgrades than higher income earners. It also sends a lot of people to spend their money online where they aren't taxed instead of buying locally. A measly 0.5-1 percentage point difference is all it takes to send hundreds of millions of dollars out of state.

Now the federal grants may seem different but again, that money has go to come from somewhere. And a lot of these folks who are profiting from or derive their income from DTRSs are politically conservative and in the one hand complain to no end about endless deficit spending about things like economic stimulus and in the other hand have no complaints whatsoever about endless deficit spending when it comes to homeland security grants for DTRSs. Meanwhile the large cities with genuine homeland security threats are, for the most part, still using analog conventional in the 450-500 mHz neighborhood and quite happy with those systems. So happy, they're fighting to stay there in the T-band.

Dtrs is a inevitable push. There is many on conv and it'll take long time but in end it'll all be toward the big dtrs plan. In a perfect world everyone would switch overnight but like many have said it comes to costs politics etc.

In a perfect world everyone would switch overnight?
Considering this is a site with a lot of scanner users who are finding their hobby has become a lot more difficult, if not entirely impossible, I'm not so sure most people here would agree with that being perfect. And this is also in the industry room, where a lot of local shops would love to sell and maintain radio systems to their local governments are not even being considered for the contract. I don' t think it's a perfect world for them either.

In a perfect world for whole food chain of large corporate interests maybe but not in a perfect world for taxpayers or anyone else.

Now I've been criticized for focusing on the decisions that clearly don't make sense, the corruption and the things that have made headlines locally that are reminiscent of JD Hogg and Buford T. Justice. I'm told "I don't know what I'm talking about," even though I read things like this
How Motorola Solutions has ruled the emergency radio market
and clearly do.

For the moment, it looks like that a national DTRS is inevitable. Especially since there appears to be absolutely no limit to the prices and spending on this by local governments. No bid is too high. But I do believe that house of cards will come crashing down when government grants dry up and the first round of forklift upgrades is required and cities can't keep up with the expenses of maintaining an IP network core.