Roswell residents crying foul over proposed URS tower

[K4SVT]

Sent via LG G2 on Sprint 4G LTE Spark

 

[MTS2000des]

Naughty boy! Name calling and insinuations of profanity is not allowed here. I would expect better from you. Be respectful, please.

What profanity? I was suggesting you go eat some SherbeT, but if you had something else on your mind as a delicacy, by all means, chow down!

So, are you going to tell us who you are or keep deflecting? I am not going to drop this. You went there. Either man up, put up or shut up.

You call me out by name, you demand I publicly qualify myself, yet you are once again hiding behind the keyboard with more rhetorical B.S. (go ahead and cry to one of the hall monitors now).

At this point you have proving to be nothing but a troll.

I myself have Motorola training in Mototrbo, thus I am knowledgeable, but that doesn't make me an expert.

Oh really? What training is that and from where? My guess is in your parent's basement reading the help files and watching the tutorials with your pirated copy of TRBO CPS.

Again, tell us WHO YOU ARE (name, call sign, etc) and what qualifications you have.

This is the THIRD TIME I am asking, and ONLY because you asked me.

. You have presented your opinions as those of an expert. I called you out on that. .

I present my opinions the same way you do. If you took me to be an expert, well, thanks for the complement, but I never represented myself as anything other than who I am. Which you are clearly aware of.

But we still don't know who YOU are and what makes you qualified to question anyone else' credentials, because at this point, you are just another anonymous turd.

One more time, put up or shut up.

. I do not believe you are an expert on trunking site tower placement from what was presented at hand. You may feel you are, and your friends here may be dazzled by your "credentials" and believe so too, but you are not, based on what qualifications you have presented. Knowledgeable on this kind of stuff? Sure, but not an "Expert"

Again, stop breathing through your mouth and try breathing through you nose. I never said, nor claimed, to be an expert on P25 digital trunking. Please quantify your claims that I said I was. I clearly listed my experience that you publicly demanded I do, yet you have consistently deflected from doing the same.

HYPOCRITE ALERT. HYPOCRITE ALERT.

But you certainly have heard from others on this thread that are directly involved and they have told you the same thing, yet you are fixated on me for some reason. You are starting to sound like that guy who has to post right behind me in every thread. Creepy I must say.

But I forgot, you peeked at the "secret documents"
.

So did you file the open records requests yet? Probably not, because your wasting too much time stalking me on this thread. You too, can see these documents.

But something tells me you won't, because you are only interested in trolling.

When you want to tell us who you are and answer the same questions you demand I answer, I'll gladly listen to what you have to say. Until then, have fun fighting government corruption, one key stroke at a time. Go keyboard commando! You're a legend in your own mind. :roll:

 

[RoswellVoter]

You have presented your opinions as those of an expert. I don't think they are enough to make a determination that a particular tower site in Roswell Georgia HAS to be right where the RoswellVoter guy doesn't want it. But I forgot, you peeked at the "secret documents"

And on that note, I still haven't seen anyone debate how you claim that can be the only site, IE; it HAS to be there, but there were also other options/sites presented, right there in public record. Sounds fishy to me, but what do I know, I'm not an expert either.

Lots has changed since you were a young lad hanging around the radio shops...

But I was provided a copy of the ORR response and documents by the neighbor who had the ORR filed... Here is Slide 26 of the August 2013 NFRRSA .ppt presentation.


I have plenty more...

 

[K4SVT]

Fulton

this video tells you right now this system needs a overhaul...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYxf7pMPZSY&feature=youtu.be

 

[K4SVT]

distorted...breaking up...just bunch of key ups yeah that system is done for

 

[JRayfield]

You state that there were alternatives that were considered before, and were not chosen because "obviously the city did not want the public input".

Do you know, for a fact, based on something that is in print (or was recorded), that the ONLY reason that any of the alternative sites were not chosen, was because "the city did not want the public input"?

Could it be that there were OTHER reasons, too, as to why none of those alternative sites were chosen (such as, the weren't suitable, from a technical standpoint)?

Your use of the word "obviously", in your statement, tends to give the idea that your statement is not based on known facts (taken from something in writing or something recorded), but is your OPINION, possibly based on some facts, but not necessarily all of the facts.That's why I'm asking the questions above.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Something that continues to be ignored, is that some of you are demanding that that tower site HAS to be right where the Roswell citizen does not want it, yet there were several other alternatives that were considered before, and were not chosen because obviously the city did not want the public input.

If the system in question is so sensitive that it HAD to be right there, then why are there (were there) many other tower sites in that general area for that site that are/were under consideration?

That being said, it completely dispels the argument of "it HAS to be right there, or the fire dept. can't put a fire out at your house" and other such emotional BS.

 

[JRayfield]

More and more law enforcement agencies are wanting (and even demanding) 95% coverage with belt-carried portables, even in rural areas and in many cases, even 95% in-building coverage. You may not see a 'need' for this, but those cops out there sure do.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

That's a nice introduction however it doesn't help me understand why it's necessary to go with a band that is inappropriate, a system type that is unnecessary and overly complex and one of the largest expenses most cities and towns run into nowadays.



One of the biggest lessons that should have been learned from the first generations of 800mHz is that it's a band that requires a lot more infrastructure to get coverage, particularly in areas that have hilly terrain and heavily forested such as the area being discussed. As I also pointed out already it is a semi-rural area, portable on-hip coverage in 95% of the area is a nice goal but it's an unnecessary goal. It's like asking for cell phone coverage in 95% of Alaska. It'd be great but it won't be used. However that is essentially what they are constructing and demanding although they have never before needed it and they don't need it now.



Interoperability is a post 9/11 concept that has never been proven to be used, at least not often enough to warrant the cost of DTRS solely for that purpose and from what I've read and learned from the users, interoperability is most often not required over large multi-county distances but instead at close range distances when switching the channel to a common interagency interop frequency has proven to be adequate for decades.
It's like spending billions of dollars a year to take off the shoes of toddlers who are boarding an airplane to inspect for explosives.

I was recently removed from my homeowners association's board of directors for asking too many questions about why things cost what they cost now when they have never cost that much before and why only one bid ever gets obtained anymore.
A couple of notable recent examples are

1.) Why does it cost $4,000 to pressure wash a fence now, with a sole source bidder when the most we've ever paid was $500? I know what we paid in the past because I wrote and signed the checks. The board voted unanimously to approve the $4000 anyway even though we didn't have it in our budget to pay that much. The only person who even bothered to go and walk the fence to see if it even needed to be cleaned was ME. And it wasn't that dirty.

2.) Why did it cost us $750 last year to limb up 50 street trees to school bus height and this year the sole bid comes in at $1500 for only 30 trees, only 7 of which were actually needing to be pruned per the school bus driver? And this was the exact same tree service as the year before.

So pardon me if I'm just incredibly dense. But when numbers don't add up, and things seem unnecessary, I ask WHY? Getting removed from the board was an accomplishment I'll wear like an honor badge until the day I die. It only confirms that I was right in asking about those expenditures and the rush decisions and corruption.

Public safety radio procurement has turned into the $4,000 sole bid pressure washing job. By the way, I made a few phone calls the very next day and found someone who washed the whole fence for $600 and did a great job.

There's nothing wrong with asking;
Why does this have cost this much?
Why is this suddenly needed?
What are other cities doing?
What are other cities in the area doing?
How many proposals have we obtained?

You are coming from the engineering standpoint of the extremely complex technicalities of building out what amounts to a private cellular network for police and fire walkie talkies to be used in a hilly, wooded rural area with unreasonably narrow tolerances.

I am coming from the business and accounting standpoint.
I am not saying you're wrong with the technical aspects, I am merely trying to understand why it is necessary to do this at all. I have not heard of the tower debates or complexities or delays in neighboring counties that have recently installed DMR radio systems on 450 and 150 mHz. Not to mention they cost many millions less.

 

[JRayfield]

Maybe the city could provide more details as to why the 'alternative' locations were not chosen. Of course, the explanation may be very 'technical', and then that becomes a challenge for the 'general public' to understand. That's where you end up having to 'trust' in the engineers that designed the system. Of course, another engineering firm could be hired to duplicate everything that's been done up until now, but that could easily cost many thousands of dollars ($100,000 or more might not be an unreasonable cost for project of this complexity). Are the citizens willing to 'foot' that extra cost, to make sure that the first engineering firm was 'correct'? I don't know. Maybe they are.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Thank you and zz. I have no involvement with Johns Creek, although I note that their political issues unfortunately kept them out of the NFRRSA. The dysfunction in Fulton was bad enough to start. The Authority members and Ed Sweeney were pretty harsh in their criticisms of JC at their last meeting, and I cannot say it was unfounded. Their inclusion would have been preferred. I expressed the same to a JC Chamber director in passing at an unrelated state election campaign reception.

I understand the need for towers. I support them. If the Lackey Road tower was the optimal location and there was no increased cost to place it there to avoid public debate and a Council vote, I would grumble a bit at my personal impact, while accepting it for the betterment of public safety. But that is not the case...

In any event, I understand more media coverage is forthcoming, and I hope the focus is on the process that this went through, and not some wacky tinfoil hat fears of radio waves. I have personally admonished neighbors for making those suggestions, and asked that they not present those unfounded concerns.

 

[JRayfield]

Setting up any simulcast system (even analog) is complicated. One 'expert' (and yes, this person I'm speaking of is an 'expert') in simulcast systems uses the term "controlled interference" to describe how simulcast systems work. Even in properly designed analog simulcast systems, there will be at least 5% of the coverage area that will be unusable, due to improper 'overlap' of the signals from the towers. Placing this 'unusable' area in the 'right spot', so that it has as little of an impact on the system usage as possible, is very 'tricky'.

Now, P25 simulcast can be even harder to design 'right'. Tower siting becomes even more critical than with analog systems. So, with this proposed system, it is very possible that this proposed site location is an absolute 'must', based on terrain in the area, where major roads/highways are located, and even where people's homes and businesses are located. Without seeing the technical data on this, no one can really say for sure, without just taking the 'word' of the engineers that designed the system.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Naughty boy! Name calling and insinuations of profanity is not allowed here. I would expect better from you. Be respectful, please.

I never claimed to be an expert, or had "expert" credentials, nor are my credentials at issue. You have presented your opinions as those of an expert. I called you out on that. You put up, but it wasn't quite enough. I do not believe you are an expert on trunking site tower placement from what was presented at hand. You may feel you are, and your friends here may be dazzled by your "credentials" and believe so too, but you are not, based on what qualifications you have presented. Knowledgeable on this kind of stuff? Sure, but not an "Expert"

I myself have Motorola training in Mototrbo, thus I am knowledgeable, but that doesn't make me an expert.

You have presented your opinions as those of an expert. I don't think they are enough to make a determination that a particular tower site in Roswell Georgia HAS to be right where the RoswellVoter guy doesn't want it. But I forgot, you peeked at the "secret documents"

And on that note, I still haven't seen anyone debate how you claim that can be the only site, IE; it HAS to be there, but there were also other options/sites presented, right there in public record. Sounds fishy to me, but what do I know, I'm not an expert either.

Lots has changed since you were a young lad hanging around the radio shops...

 

[MTS2000des]

and the real expert has spoken. Thanks John. As always, it's good to hear a voice of reason and some real substance rather than emotion. I certainly NEVER claimed to be an expert, I am an advanced self-maintained user with bench tech experience.

Beyond that, I LISTEN to colleagues like you who have been in this business for decades and do infrastructure for a living.

I know enough about digital simulcast to know it is a "black art" and not as simple as "putting up towers" wherever they look nice. That is all I was trying to say.

 

[zz0468]

Great but these agencies all have licenses and frequencies already. Some of them even keep their analog/conv repeaters in working order to fall back on.

FCC licensees are well within their rights to utilize their licenses in whatever manner they see fit, so long as they stay within the terms of their license grant. If it's a backup system, that's a valid and legal reason to retain the licenses. That doesn't automatically indicate that the backup system is adequate for primary use. It's THEIR call, not anyone elses.

In those cases where a body is found down at the creek, you can have units at the top relaying traffic to those down in the hole...

There's myriad reasons why that could be unacceptable, not the least of which is, it requires another unit on top to relay. This is an operational decision, and if it's unacceptable to the folks in the field. It's THEIR call, not anyone elses.

OR... you can simply take the radio out of its holster and use it like radios were used before every cop in america had a RSM... ...That's just silly.]

I've provided an example why that can be dangerous. It's within your right to feel otherwise, but as technology becomes available to make an inherently dangerous job safer, law enforcement people are going to opt for the technology. In my opinion, that's reasonable.

Well said. You left out the folks that have to figure out HOW TO PAY FOR IT.
and
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM

I left that part out for a reason. It's not within my scope of responsibility to find funding for these projects. It has been in the past, and I'm here to tell you, for an engineering type (me), arranging funding sucks. I won't do it again.

I want a lot of things too. I have a lot of WANTS. Just like the cops, they want this and they want that. They don't NEED it, but they WANT it.

It's good to want things. It indicates a healthy ego and sense of self worth.

And YOU... your job is to provide what they want and keep it working.

Yes, very good. You're learning.

And as a taxpayer, my job is to sit down and shut up about it.

No, your job is to squawk about it... a job you're exceptionally good at, I must say. Keep up the good work. Even from my perspective, your squawking does serve a necessary purpose, even when it gets tiresome and repetitious. Society needs constant checks and balances. You're doing your part.

But somewhere in there, there needs to be at least one person who has to figure out where is the money going to come from.

That's one of the functions of the elected officials. They, or their duly appointed representatives, are the only ones legally authorized to encumber taxpayer funds for any project. If you have an issue with what they do with the money, you're supposed to take your opinions to the appropriate elected officials. Not the engineering types doing what they're payed to do.

Why do we need to blow money on this all of a sudden when we have bigger priorities.

Again, it's the elected officials who set the priorities, based on input from their constituents, and their department heads. Why don't you ask them?

I didn't say encryption. I said Privacy.
Encryption is unnecessary and prohibitively expensive for non-profit government agencies. Maybe for the secret service or military but civilian cops don't need it.

Encryption capability is inherent to P25 systems, and adding it is not that expensive. Justifications for local law enforcement can be found in dozens of threads here on RR.

...we have to look at some of these deals and question how these got through. Areas that are notoriously wrought with corruption and improprieties.

Ok. Fair enough. These expensive systems do need oversight. But that doesn't automatically mean that they are unjustified, unnecessary, etc.

I'm not making these last comments to belittle you, or demean you, but I've gotten the sense that you are neither involved in law enforcement, public safety, or the technical side of public safety communications. I get the sense that you're a hobbyist and you do something else for a living. There's nothing wrong with that, and you're quite entitled to your opinions. But if that is indeed your background, I would submit that you are lacking some of the insights held by the public safety community that would cause you and them to have differing opinions as to what's necessary, and what's not.

I've made an effort to explain some of the thought processes that take place that drives some of these systems into existence. You clearly choose to maintain your own (outsider, for lack of a better term?) opinion. I don't live in Georgia, and have only been commenting generically in terms of site acquisitions and justifications for modern radio systems. I have no other dog in this fight, and nothing further to add to the thread, particularly to this circular debate you and I are having. You may have the last word. Good night.

NNNN

 

[RoswellVoter]

You state that there were alternatives that were considered before, and were not chosen because "obviously the city did not want the public input".

Do you know, for a fact, based on something that is in print (or was recorded), that the ONLY reason that any of the alternative sites were not chosen, was because "the city did not want the public input"?

Could it be that there were OTHER reasons, too, as to why none of those alternative sites were chosen (such as, the weren't suitable, from a technical standpoint)?

Your use of the word "obviously", in your statement, tends to give the idea that your statement is not based on known facts (taken from something in writing or something recorded), but is your OPINION, possibly based on some facts, but not necessarily all of the facts.That's why I'm asking the questions above.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

City Administrator Kay Love's email to the City Attorney addressed her desire to clear the Lackey site without the issues from the Cox Road site. In writing...

 

[zz0468]

City Administrator Kay Love's email to the City Attorney addressed her desire to clear the Lackey site without the issues from the Cox Road site. In writing...

Ok, one last comment from me, and then I'll butt out. =)

On the face of it, the City Administrator's actions are, at some level, common in the process of site acquisition for a radio system. Given several sites within the search radius, varying weight can be given to RF and simucast characteristics, cost of land purchases or leases, permits required, and the path of least resistance when it comes to the public debate.

In other words, it's not uncommon, nor is it illegal to bypass a better RF site in favor of one where the controlling entity can just say "build it here" without requiring further debate. It can shave years and hundreds of thousands of dollars off the end cost of a project, and I've bought into such decisions myself. The RF characteristics only have to be "acceptable" for the system. They don't have to be "best".

So, I don't know if anything nefarious is going on with that simple fact, I just wanted to point out that it's one of the tricks of the trade, like it or not.

Good luck with your fight, from the guy that would be on the other side of the courtroom if I lived and worked in Georgia.

 

[RoswellVoter]

More and more law enforcement agencies are wanting (and even demanding) 95% coverage with belt-carried portables, even in rural areas and in many cases, even 95% in-building coverage. You may not see a 'need' for this, but those cops out there sure do.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Correct, as was planned for the FS6 location, which was preferred ahead of the Lackey Road location:

 

[RoswellVoter]

Ok, one last comment from me, and then I'll butt out. =)

On the face of it, the City Administrator's actions are, at some level, common in the process of site acquisition for a radio system. Given several sites within the search radius, varying weight can be given to RF and simucast characteristics, cost of land purchases or leases, permits required, and the path of least resistance when it comes to the public debate.

In other words, it's not uncommon, nor is it illegal to bypass a better RF site in favor of one where the controlling entity can just say "build it here" without requiring further debate. It can shave years and hundreds of thousands of dollars off the end cost of a project, and I've bought into such decisions myself. The RF characteristics only have to be "acceptable" for the system. They don't have to be "best".

So, I don't know if anything nefarious is going on with that simple fact, I just wanted to point out that it's one of the tricks of the trade, like it or not.

Good luck with your fight, from the guy that would be on the other side of the courtroom if I lived and worked in Georgia.

Fair points, so long as she had the authority to bind the City under the IGA. As noted in the minutes from the 9/11/13 Council meetings, there were questions, unanswered, about the increased costs--due to lost revenue for city property leases--if they used a secondary private lease option.

 

[rapidcharger]

More and more law enforcement agencies are wanting (and even demanding) 95% coverage with belt-carried portables, even in rural areas and in many cases, even 95% in-building coverage. You may not see a 'need' for this, but those cops out there sure do.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

You're right. Not only do I not see a "need" for it, I don't see a way to "PAY" for it.
I would like a lot of things too but I have to live within my means. The government has to also.

The governments around here are not run by people who have business experience or even
demonstrate competence with using a calculator to add and subtract. So they will end up
buying things that don't make any sense, NOT LISTENING OR ACCEPTING ANY PUBLIC INPUT,
as Roswell Voter indicated, and they will spend money on things they don't need with money they
don't have while much larger priorities remain undealt with.

 

[rapidcharger]

There's myriad reasons why that could be unacceptable, not the least of which is, it requires another unit on top to relay. )))

And that unit just might be available if you don't go wasting tens of millions of dollars on DTRSs in rural areas where they aren't needed.

(((I've provided an example why that can be dangerous. It's within your right to feel otherwise, but as technology becomes available to make an inherently dangerous job safer, law enforcement people are going to opt for the technology. In my opinion, that's reasonable. )))

If you think removing a portable radio from a holster is that dangerous, then you should try working in an understaffed department that had to go without the staff it needs because the crooked board of bubbas felt it was far more important to support their friends in a deal made on the golf course rather than one to support law enforcement or the people who live there. If you ask most cops about their radio system, most of them don't know that much about other than it works or it doesn't work or they like a particular subscriber unit over another.

In the spring, I was pulled over for allegedly driving 30 miles over the speed limit on a highway. This was in a place that had a modern digital trunking system with encrpytion. The officer could not run my license because he didn't have reception on his radios or MDT. I ended up leaving with a warning. I guess race-to-waste DTRSs aren't so great afterall when you can't even run someone's license if you catch them going 30 over the speed limit. Wonderful.

((( It's not within my scope of responsibility to find funding for these projects. It has been in the past, and I'm here to tell you, for an engineering type (me), arranging funding sucks. I won't do it again. ))))

Yeah! I bet it was hard to arrange funding when the funding isn't there. That's my point. And you're not doing the rest of us a favor by enabling these crooked, brainless, toothless bubbas to waste our money and erect 400' towers where they wouldn't otherwise be needed.

(((No, your job is to squawk about it... a job you're exceptionally good at, I must say. Keep up the good work. Even from my perspective, your squawking does serve a necessary purpose, even when it gets tiresome and repetitious. Society needs constant checks and balances. You're doing your part. )))

My squawking does diddley squat about it.
Diddleysquat.

That's how things work here. Anyone who is making sense can sit down and shut up and if they don't, they will be escorted out of the meeting.

(((That's one of the functions of the elected officials. They, or their duly appointed representatives, are the only ones legally authorized to encumber taxpayer funds for any project. If you have an issue with what they do with the money, you're supposed to take your opinions to the appropriate elected officials. Not the engineering types doing what they're payed to do. )))

But they are not. They are just like the Boss Hogg avatar I'm using.

(((Again, it's the elected officials who set the priorities, based on input from their constituents, and their department heads. Why don't you ask them? )))

Because I'm not a member of their country club. They don't give care what I say to them. Believe me, I've tried. I am no risk of foiling their deals. People can't be bothered with showing up at a meeting.

(((Encryption capability is inherent to P25 systems, and adding it is not that expensive. Justifications for local law enforcement can be found in dozens of threads here on RR. )))

I haven't seen any justifications.
All I have seen are bull**** excuses.

There's a BIG difference between the two.

(((Ok. Fair enough. These expensive systems do need oversight. But that doesn't automatically mean that they are unjustified, unnecessary, etc. )))

I'd love to hear some examples of when one was ever justified and necessary.

(((I'm not making these last comments to belittle you, or demean you, but I've gotten the sense that you are neither involved in law enforcement, public safety, or the technical side of public safety communications. I get the sense that you're a hobbyist and you do something else for a living. There's nothing wrong with that, and you're quite entitled to your opinions. But if that is indeed your background, I would submit that you are lacking some of the insights held by the public safety community that would cause you and them to have differing opinions as to what's necessary, and what's not.)))

You're right. I come from a business background.
In business we do things that make sense that have to get done to remain profitable.
And the goal is to spend as little money as possible to do that.

As a hobbyist, I spend thousands of dollars on radios I don't need and I do it just for fun. My business on the other hand...My business uses cheap, basic analog radios. Not P25 radios on a trunking system. Still managing to stay safe in the workplace for years without an accident with many opportunities to get injured just like the cops. If the analog conventional radios being used were not working or did not improve safety or productivity, they would be replaced. But they work fine. Just like the radio systems in many municipalities that feel that have to go and buy a new one. Or in some cases, two or three new ones.

(((I've made an effort to explain some of the thought processes that take place that drives some of these systems into existence.)))

There is very little thought process.
"I want I want I want."
"Gimme gimme gimme"
That's about the extent of the thinking.

((( I don't live in Georgia, and have only been commenting generically in terms of site acquisitions and justifications for modern radio systems

Yeah, don't you live somewhere that is slightly less corrupt that doesn't have nearly as many small towns blowing tens of millions of dollars so their 4 man VFD can have 95% body worn , in building coverage in a rural county 6 miles wide?

 

[rapidcharger]

...

 

[MTS2000des]

I have deleted this as there was no need to bring any of this up. I apologize. Carry on.

 

[RRR]

Again, for the comprehension impaired, my qualifications were never an issue. You claimed to be an expert when you said a site that actually was one of several, just "had to be there" or folks'es houses would burn down and other such nonsense.

No hiding here, I stand by what I said, my qualifications are YOUR issue, not germaine to the topic at hand. I don't answer to your demands.