Summit County (CO) - Going P25 VHF Trunked

[Steve2003]

Looks like Summit County is in the process of collecting bids to build out a "P25 VHF Phase I Digital Trunked Simulcast Radio System". Details can be found in the RFP package below:

Summit County, CO - Official Website

 

[Spitfire8520]

This is one of those times where I question why the local government is insisting on their own VHF system rather than use existing infrastructure provided by DTRS. DTRS is already co-located at 3 of their 5 sites and the State is currently offering to foot the bill for new DTRS sites if they provide the tower space. Clear Creek County and Gilpin County are taking advantage of that fact to make their move to DTRS.

The fact that they are also insisting on in-building coverage reminds me of the current fiasco in Boulder where they insisted that they could not join DTRS because they just had to have a VHF simulcast, only to be pushed to 700 MHz by their vendor because of their in-building requirements. It would be probably be more cost effective to add additional 700/800 MHz DTRS sites to fill in any coverage gaps caused by switching off VHF then it would be to build a brand new P25 radio systems.

 

[abqscan]

One word comes to mind. Control.

 

[ShyFlyer]

Control.

This was my initial thought at well. It reminds me of the time that my home town county in NM wanted to create a consolidated dispatch center for all the fire, police, and EMS activities in the county.

The county included two incorporated communities (that haven't gotten along with each other for many years) and two Pueblos. The State Police where invited to move their dispatch operations for the area to this new center.

State declined, thought they said the idea was sound. The smaller of the two incorporated communities (a "village") told the county, essentially, where to place their consolidated dispatch center (uncomfortable and not humanly possible) because they felt their rival community would have too much control over the center. The two Pueblos also said no, but getting them to cooperate on anything that they aren't required to by law (or their governing bodies can't profit from) is a lost cause from the start.

Some people don't like to give up or share thier little "kingdoms" that they've set up for themselves.

 

[kjk681]

VHF is not necessarily a bad thing given the geography they are trying to cover. States like Wyoming, Missouri and Alaska all successfully operate their statewide systems in VHF. With the advent of multi-band radios, you are also starting to see mixed systems with VHF and 700/800 MHz like the State of Tennessee. More rural areas often benefit with fewer sites using VHF.

Control is certainly a part of it, but that is not always a bad thing. There is also reason to question how DTRS will be maintained in the future given their past issues and a lack of clear sustainment plan by the state. Until a few years back, they had not been paying their yearly software upgrade fees. This put them in a position where they could not upgrade to replace obsolete equipment. They ended up having to get additional fund allocated by the legislator to pay their back bill of around $15M before they could upgrade the system. This was a big reason why Weld/Adams/Broomfield Counties moved their sites to the own system, FRCC. It was also a driving factor for Westminster, Arvada, Lakewood, Aurora and Denver not being a part of DTRS. Many states charge access fees per radio to provide an income stream to pay for the maintenance and upgrade of the systems which Colorado does not do. The City of Boulder could have benefited by a mixed VHF/700/800 MHz system.

 

[superfreak]

VHF is not necessarily a bad thing given the geography they are trying to cover. States like Wyoming, Missouri and Alaska all successfully operate their statewide systems in VHF. With the advent of multi-band radios, you are also starting to see mixed systems with VHF and 700/800 MHz like the State of Tennessee. More rural areas often benefit with fewer sites using VHF.

Control is certainly a part of it, but that is not always a bad thing. There is also reason to question how DTRS will be maintained in the future given their past issues and a lack of clear sustainment plan by the state. Until a few years back, they had not been paying their yearly software upgrade fees. This put them in a position where they could not upgrade to replace obsolete equipment. They ended up having to get additional fund allocated by the legislator to pay their back bill of around $15M before they could upgrade the system. This was a big reason why Weld/Adams/Broomfield Counties moved their sites to the own system, FRCC. It was also a driving factor for Westminster, Arvada, Lakewood, Aurora and Denver not being a part of DTRS. Many states charge access fees per radio to provide an income stream to pay for the maintenance and upgrade of the systems which Colorado does not do. The City of Boulder could have benefited by a mixed VHF/700/800 MHz system.

As could Summit. Hang the VHF sites off the state system.. Buy dual band radios for Summit County and allow the radios to roam when they leave the county. I have a hard time understanding the RFP, were they asking for 97% coverage over the entire county or did they create a service area that eliminated some of the backcountry? 97% coverage with portable on the hip countywide would be tough.

 

[greenthumb]

It's 97% of the "covered area" which means that the respondent provides a coverage map of what they predict the coverage to be and they guarantee that 97% of that predicted area is covered by some measurable metric. There is a difference between that and "bounded area", which is where they give the respondents a geographical area that needs to be covered by some percentage.

But I'll be shocked if this doesn't end up with Summit County on DTRS 7/800. That set of sites can give them great coverage throughout the county, and they can leverage CCNC partners operating and maintaining the core.

I do get shocked from time to time though