and2112 said:The remaining lack of interoperability is not the equipment's fault. It is improper/insufficient planning, funding, and cooperation that fails to establish communications pipes between the systems big enough to handle all the radio traffic before the need arises. (The bad news is that no matter how big you make the pipes, there is always potential for an emergency to be large enough to overflow them... but we can plan, fund, and cooperate to minimize this.)
In other words, if the agencies want to interoperate badly enough, they will. Their abilities to do so will be directly proportional to the amounts of planning, funding, and cooperation they put forth in doing so.2112 said:Don't tell me we can't make a couple of differing radio systems in a single state talk to each other.
It's all about attitude, regardless of the way it's spun in a newspaper article.
Exactly. And boy, if what you advised about Motorola is true, I'm rather underwhelmed about their facilitation of interoperability.N_Jay said:I would blame the agencies more than Moto, or M/a-COM!
You can put a Moto control station on a M/A-COM system, and put a M/A-COM control station on a Moto system just as easily.
Right up to the point where the owner of the system tell you not to.:lol:
I'm sure that they realize that there is more to the state than that which exists along I-40, and I'm sure that the system will spread to reach those locations in the future. However, with the money that's available, it's prudent to implement the system in an efficient manner to serve as much of the state's population as possible. 70% of the state's population is concentrated along I-44. So, it makes sense to orient the system along I-44 first, and then add on as money permits.skywatch said:Now, if we could only get them to realize that there is more to the state than the "I-44" corridor. I-40 could use some of that cash as well. Oh well, maybe we can join up with the new Texas system... lol!
I'm not sure what you mean?2112 said:Exactly. And boy, if what you advised about Motorola is true, I'm rather underwhelmed about their facilitation of interoperability.
N_Jay said:I would blame the agencies more than Moto, or M/a-COM!
You can put a Moto control station on a M/A-COM system, and put a M/A-COM control station on a Moto system just as easily.
Right up to the point where the owner of the system tell you not to.:lol:
freqscout said:Sounds like the big /\/\ is actually worthy of a big F when it comes to their intersystem interoperability grade. Why is it that the bigger supplier of trunked radios systems cannot meet the interoperability needs of the world in an environment of rapid changes in technology and market competition?
iamhere300 said:Let me make sure I have this right...
You are saying that I can take a M/A-COM control station, say, and OpenSky
control station, and make it work on a Smartzone system?
I would not pre-judge the SWN solution until it is implemented.iamhere300 said:Actually, M/A-Comm seems to be the grand prize winner for the
"interoperability - how not to do it" award.
Look at the kluge they are having to do in NY and PA to make their
systems talk with P25 systems. Have you ever listened to a system
that is converted from Analog to Digital, to analog, from analog to Digital, to
analog again? Nasty stuff.
Of course, P25 is just a recomendation - unless you want a federal communications
grant now. It has lots of agencies in NYS still upset.
N_Jay said:No, you can INTERFACE an OpenSky (or EDACS) control station to a Smartzone system.
4 wire audio, PTT, and COR are wonderful things.