Replacing Wiscom

[evilbrad]

Wisconsin Office of Emergency Communications issues Request for Proposal for Statewide Public Safety Interoperable Communication System | Wisconsin Office of Emergency Communications

On November 30, 2021, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released for a Statewide Public Safety Interoperable Communication System to replace the existing Wis ...

oec.wi.gov

 

[djeplett]

As always they want a 700/800 mHz system. Works great in the urban centers. How about all the forrested northern counties? Why do they always insist on not using VHF?! Get ready for the excuses of why they will need to spend our tax money to put up tons more towers. It's the MPSCS in Michigan all over again.

 

[evilbrad]

Besides the most urban areas, Most of the rural counties are vhf. I saw a short nmo antenna on a Wisdot truck. I didn't see any Vhf(Wiscom)Thought they used wiscom???

 

[djeplett]

Besides the most urban areas Most of the Rural.co are vhf

Now, yes. As they should be. But this proposal states they want a 700/800 mHz system.

 

[R8000]

Why do they always insist on not using VHF?! Get ready for the excuses of why they will need to spend our tax money to put up tons more towers. It's the MPSCS in Michigan all over again.

Does this move affect your scanning in any way ? I am trying to understand your motive for bashing the state for trying to make things better for first responders.

 

[djeplett]

Does this move affect your scanning in any way ? I am trying to understand your motive for bashing the state for trying to make things better for first responders.

It absolutely affects how much of my tax money the state is going to spend. The current system uses VHF for forested counties. It's a proven fact that VHF works much better in dense foliage. So therefore, in order to have the same coverage that they have now, they will have to build many more towers to cover the same amount of area. I'm all for spending money for First Responders. Just not spending money on a system that doesn't work for the entire state.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Now, yes. As they should be. But this proposal states they want a 700/800 mHz system.

I wonder if part of this is because they lease a bunch of VHF spectrum? This system has been running about 10 years. It was a bargain back then. It will be huge sticker shock when the "big guys" bid it.

 

[djeplett]

I wonder if part of this is because they lease a bunch of VHF spectrum? This system has been running about 10 years. It was a bargain back then. It will be huge sticker shock when the "big guys" bid it.

I'd rather they spend the money on the spectrum rather than the multiple times more towers that would be required to provide the same coverage in the northern counties. It's not just the initial expense of building the new towers and buying/leasing the locations, but also the upkeep expense for all those additional locations.

Hopefully, this is just preliminary wording that will eventually morph into a system similar to what WISCOM is now; VHF for the rural north and UHF for the urban centers.

 

[west-pac]

Does this move affect your scanning in any way ? I am trying to understand your motive for bashing the state for trying to make things better for first responders.

Yes, it will effect my scanning of WISCOM. I receive the 139Mhz sites in Indiana occasionally, and if they all switch to 700/800mhz I'll no longer be able to receive them.

 

[OpSec]

I wonder if part of this is because they lease a bunch of VHF spectrum? This system has been running about 10 years. It was a bargain back then. It will be huge sticker shock when the "big guys" bid it.

There is no leasing of spectrum. The state owns Part 22 licenses in VHF, but there is no recurring spectrum leasing going on. That concept in itself would be cost prohibitive.

 

[west-pac]

There is no leasing of spectrum. The state owns Part 22 licenses in VHF, but there is no recurring spectrum leasing going on. That concept in itself would be cost prohibitive.

Licenses cost money, licenses have to be renewed, therefore leased spectrum. The state doesn't "own" the spectrum.

 

[GTR8000]

Licenses cost money, licenses have to be renewed, therefore leased spectrum. The state doesn't "own" the spectrum.

Public safety/government agencies are exempt from FCC fees, so that's not accurate. There may've been a one time cost back in the day to acquire some spectrum, but it's not reoccurring as @OpSec already noted.

Did anyone actually read the supporting documentation before speculating here? It lays out the reasons and goals for the new system...no mystery to it.

 

[R8000]

Did anyone actually read the supporting documentation before speculating here? It lays out the reasons and goals for the new system...no mystery to it.

I did.
It covers the concerns djeplett mentioned, but I wasn't going to say anything and just let that hole get dug deeper

 

[OpSec]

Licenses cost money, licenses have to be renewed, therefore leased spectrum. The state doesn't "own" the spectrum.

Part 90 licenses cost money once and then are renewed for $Free.99 every 10 years.

As I said, the state does own several Part 22 licenses...which are commercial licenses, not public safety, and were bought at auction from the FCC and/or the original license holders. This required FCC waiver of their own rules to allow such use. Wisconsin is not the only state to do so for their statewide VHF systems. Maine and South Dakota come to mind.

 

[OpSec]

deleted

 

[djeplett]

I did.
It covers the concerns djeplett mentioned, but I wasn't going to say anything and just let that hole get dug deeper

I don't see where it covers my concerns at all. Since you read it, enlighten me.

 

[R8000]

I don't see where it covers my concerns at all. Since you read it, enlighten me.

No.
You should really read the RFP. It's understandable to be concerned about wasteful spending, but when the documentation provided clearly shows justification for their decisions and you just choose not to read it, that's just laziness and disrespectful to those who are trying to make Wisconsin a little bit better.
Here's a hint.... your answer is spread out in more than one file.

 

[djeplett]

No.
You should really read the RFP. It's understandable to be concerned about wasteful spending, but when the documentation provided clearly shows justification for their decisions and you just choose not to read it, that's just laziness and disrespectful to those who are trying to make Wisconsin a little bit better.
Here's a hint.... your answer is spread out in more than one file.

By your tone you must have misunderstood my position. I am in no way against a replacement system. I am against the use of a UHF system statewide. I am all for a system that is tailored to the users it will need to serve. If that means changing some of the sites from a VHF only site to a UHF site, then by all means I'm for that. I am against making the system UHF only throughout the state because that will require more sites in rural forested counties. One of the objectives of this proposal is to increase coverage. I don't believe that will be possible without a large amount of additional sites in forested counties if the system must be UHF only.

I have read as much of the proposal as I can with my limited time and with my limited knowledge. I am by no means an expert. I do not see where it allows the proposed bid to utilize VHF repeaters other than for the four statewide conventional interop frequencies currently in use. That is why I asked you to provide a citation where it covers my concerns. Appendix E has a map of sites and if I understand it correctly, it is showing existing sites as well as future sites that would be UHF. But I don't see where the existing sites that are VHF would stay that way. I also do not see justification for why the proposal requires the system to be UHF statewide. The only thing I see that mentions why they would want to go away from VHF was a mention of a high noise floor. I don't doubt that in urban areas the noise floor is much higher on VHF as opposed to UHF, so if they decide to change some sites from VHF to UHF and are able to meet the increase in coverage... EXCELLENT. But that doesn't mean the noise floor on VHF is currently higher throughout the state.

I thought RR was a place to disseminate knowledge, but I guess if you want to just keep bashing me and claiming I'm lazy and disrespectful then OK you have a right to your opinion. I'm just asking for clarification of why I'm "digging a deeper hole".

 

[R8000]

(snip)

It's okay to not be an expert, but let's give the state a fighting chance to make it work before it even gets started.

• Appendix M is a powerful document. Read it very carefully.
• Appendix E is not what you think it is. The final site location and count is spelled out by the winning bid to meet coverage requirements.
• Functional Specs 1.2.4 Explain the coverage requirements.
• Functional Specs 1.2.5 Explains site selection. This is also important to read and understand.
• Functional Specs 5.11 explains acceptance of final coverage testing. Item 'F" has the word "foliage" in it.
• Functional Specs 5.3.1 is a huge reason why VHF is not ideal for this application. (Appendix M and the discussion of BDA's are also part of this)

There are many other good points in the RFP. It truly is worth it to give it a good read. Yea, it is a lot of reading, but it spells out what the future system will be capable of. This way you get it right from the source and not "I heard from someone....". If you read all this, you can also see how much complexity is involved in a system of this size and hopefully appreciate what happens behind the scenes.

 

[ozzie]

I live in MN and monitor the Armer system on a daily basis. I have asked numerous people in law enforcement and EMS how they like the system and they say it works well. I always found it strange that MN and MI are on 800mhz systems and that Wi went a completely different route. I assume it would make state to state interop harder.