Statewide Wireless Network article

[studgeman]

I have yet to find a local agency that has a serious interest in SWN once they understand the lack of coverage it will provide and the costs required to boost the coverage to a usable level. Coverage is the single biggest inhibitor to local adoption, not cost per subscriber unit. As we have seen in this thread and others several counties are going digital and/or trunked. Monroe, Essex, Onandaga, etc. needless to say subscribers for these systems are well over $1000, not cheap by any stretch. I fully expect state law enforcemnt agenices to have 2 or three radios in their cars, one for the state and one or 2 for the locals that actually dispatch, patches or no patches. The good news is, for counties putting in project 25 systems, integration through network first is much less complicated and works a ton better, but it is still a patch. The only people in local govt that would have a serious interest in the state system are the county corrections transport teams as some of them travel accross the state.

For the umteenth millionth time, the only way to monitor an opensky network is with a properly authorized opensky radio. There are no other options.

Project 25 systems whether from Motorola, M/A Com, Icom, Tait, Kenwood, are just that project 25 standard, hence monitorable by any project 25 capable scanner.

 

[PJH]

Before we all get ahead of ourselves, lets remember that the ink isn't even dry on paper yet. There is a lot of stuff to be worked out still.

The world only really started to listen to each other in the last 10-15 years, and before that everyone was on their own with a two channel radio. This stuff all gets worked out in a project like this. The world doesn't stop because a barney fife down can't hear a troop, etc.

Not trying to be too cynical, but this is all small stuff that should be sweated. Only time will tell with all the other questions. This stuff is being worked on daily.

I know there is a police presence... there are at least 8 agencies covering my area, and everyone is on a different system. Hell, I can't even get my county on the same bandplan at the moment (which would make everyones life easier).

 

[SCANdal]

Don't misunderstand...this new system isn't going to simplify things

I fully expect state law enforcemnt agenices to have 2 or three radios in their cars, one for the state and one or 2 for the locals that actually dispatch, patches or no patches.

man,

Sadly, many Troop cars in the zones I frequent already have to have two radios in their cars. The typical combo is a high band for DSP channels and an 800 MHz to talk to the county (polling channel, intersystems, etc.) they cover. Troop T cars have had two radios for the longest time - one UHF for the Thruway system and one high band to talk to other troopers.

SCANdal

 

[DaveNF2G]

Patching is not magical. There must be some connection between radio system that will be patched - a radio frequency, a phone line, a fiber optic or coaxial cable, etc. Somebody must buy the hardware and pay to have it installed. The original problem remains, then, of pay-to-play for the locals. The NYSP might be willing to allow patching, but will the State pay the whole shot for a local comm center to have a patch? Unlikely.

Nothing about SWN will be "free" for anyone.

 

[APX8000]

In NE Florida for example, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office uses a Motorola 800 MHz Type II Smartzone system running APCO-25 CAI with full time encryption on all channels. The State of Florida uses EDACS 800 MHz Networked Standard with ESK (Encrypted System Key). They routinely patch talkgroups together at the console and each still maintains their own encryption keys. They also have MA CALL and MA TAC1 analog repeaters up throughout the state for interoperability.

As far as county/local level participation on the SWN, I can see communications centers adding a SWN radio in the console. Why pay $3500 per radio for every unit and officer, I just don't see it. I know many counties in SE NY like Rockland, Westchester and Nassau who are in the process of building there own systems currently and who want control over there systems, not permission from the State. They wil probably just set up patches from the one SWN radio the buy to an interop talkgroups on their system.

 

[MB]

For the umteenth millionth time, the only way to monitor an opensky network is with a properly authorized opensky radio. There are no other options.

Project 25 systems whether from Motorola, M/A Com, Icom, Tait, Kenwood, are just that project 25 standard, hence monitorable by any project 25 capable scanner.

I realize that, but the question I was asking is will a digital scanner be able to monitor the P25IP VHF overlay that will be used in the Adirondacks and Catskills?

The thing that has got me is that it is a Project 25 IP VHF Overlay. That is why I question if it can be monitored by a digital scanner. Excuse me but I am not an expert on digital radio systems.

Someone told me that we should be able to, but I am trying to get more opinions on this since it is considered an IP VHF Overlay.

So will we be able to monitor this?

 

[PJH]

The IP part is just how the audio is routed to the sites, but again EVERYTHING is PRELIMANARY. Depending on how MA/COM impelents it, maybe. This is a question that cannot be answered right now.

 

[MB]

The IP part is just how the audio is routed to the sites, but again EVERYTHING is PRELIMANARY. Depending on how MA/COM impelents it, maybe. This is a question that cannot be answered right now.

Thanks PJH.

 

[APX8000]

PJH...Maybe you can help me with a question I asked the rep from the State.

I asked since M/A-COM uses Provoice digital and Motorola uses IMBE how one culd talk to the other. I also asked if Provoice was P25 compliant. He said it was. I thought not. Can you explain this/clarify.

 

[PJH]

This is an interesting thing...

From what I know, in a ProVoice system, they are using IMBE...however MA/COM uses with a few extra things in the data stream which does not play nice with other IMBE radios. From what I heard though (haven't seen) is that on the new MA/COM radios, they will talk ProVoice and CAI IMBE..kind of like a dual mode IMBE.

So the answer as far as I know is maybe...depending on the radio used. Seeing that this will be a new system, there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[DaveNF2G]

The State rep probably assumed that ProVoice had something to do with SWN. It doesn't. The OpenSky system is supposed to be P25 compliant, but if so, it's only by a very broad definition of "compliant." Any interoperability a ProVoice or OpenSky system might have is implemented at the back end. The radios themselves are still totally unable to communicate with anything that isn't operating by M/A-Com's specs.

 

[N_Jay]

PJH...Maybe you can help me with a question I asked the rep from the State.

I asked since M/A-COM uses Provoice digital and Motorola uses IMBE how one culd talk to the other. I also asked if Provoice was P25 compliant. He said it was. I thought not. Can you explain this/clarify.

P25 uses IMBE, but must also use the DEFINED channel coding and modulation.
M/A-COM sells P25 under their P25-IP brand.
M/A-COM ProVoice is NOT P25 compliant.
M/A-COM does make radios that do both modes, hence most of the confusion.

 

[N_Jay]

This is an interesting thing...

From what I know, in a ProVoice system, they are using IMBE...however MA/COM uses with a few extra things in the data stream which does not play nice with other IMBE radios.

It is not the "use of a few extra thinbgs", it is the FACT that ProVoice used a completely different channel coding and modulation.

 

[N_Jay]

The State rep probably assumed that ProVoice had something to do with SWN. It doesn't.

No one knowlegable should be making such an obvious mistake.

The OpenSky system is supposed to be P25 compliant, but if so, it's only by a very broad definition of "compliant."

OpenSky is NOT P25 compliant, and there is no "Broad" definition of compliance that would allow one to make such a claim.

(Again, just to clarify, M/A-COM does make field equipment that has both OpenSky and P25 modes, but that has NOTHING to do with the OpenSKy mode/system being P25 compliant!)

Any interoperability a ProVoice or OpenSky system might have is implemented at the back end.

This is correct. (as for as the SYSTEM is concerned)

The radios themselves are still totally unable to communicate with anything that isn't operating by M/A-Com's specs.

This is where everyone seems to get confused.
M/A-COM does make field equipment with ProVoice, OpenSky and P25 modes.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I rarely use "New York State government" and "knowledgeable" in the same sentence.

As for the field equipment, does M/A-Com, or anybody, make radios that can do any of their M-C proprietary modes and P25 in the same unit?

 

[N_Jay]

I rarely use "New York State government" and "knowledgeable" in the same sentence.

As for the field equipment, does M/A-Com, or anybody, make radios that can do any of their M-C proprietary modes and P25 in the same unit?

The answer is YES!
(I think I said that 3 times in two posts above.):roll:

:lol: :lol:

 

[DaveNF2G]

Well, what you said is that all three formats are available. What you might have meant was that they could all be had in the same radio, but that wasn't explicit. Hence, my question.

 

[N_Jay]

Well, what you said is that all three formats are available. What you might have meant was that they could all be had in the same radio, but that wasn't explicit. Hence, my question.

OK, I see you can read what I said both ways.

1) M/A-COM makes (multiple types of) field equipment that does P25, OpenSky and ProVoice.
2) M/A-COM makes field equipment that does P25, OpenSky and ProVoice (in the same unit).

I meant the latter.

 

[PJH]

I was trying to keep some things a little easier on the not-so-tech minded people...

Provoice uses the IMBE codec, but its GFSK vs C4FM that P25 CAI is.

 

[N_Jay]

I was trying to keep some things a little easier on the not-so-tech minded people...

Provoice uses the IMBE codec, but its GFSK vs C4FM that P25 CAI is.

If people here wanted to keep things easy for the "not-so-tech minded people", they would STOP REFERRING TO THE VOCODER, and only call each air interface format by its name.

Then ProVoice would always be "ProVoice", OpenSky would always be "OpenSky", Astro would always be "Astro" and P25 would always be "P25"; and no one would get mixed up.:wink: :wink:

But that does not seem acceptable to those who like to have IMBE, vs. AMBE, vs. VSELP arguments.:roll: :evil: