Toms River PD

[902]

Sorry guys, I should have checked back on the thread sooner. I'll try not to get on a soapbox.

No, I don't mean TETRA was a disaster. Quite the opposite. It has proven itself to be widely accepted and reliable around the world, although I'm not sure how smashing it is. My 'disaster' refers to all this trouble over developing a standard and few embracing it while it is still relevant.

My personal belief is that a divergent "standard" was not necessary for North America and that P25 may have been TETRA had it not been for a war of intellectual property and market control. I think the process has been drawn out ad nauseum by the manufacturing community. I know people who have put their kids through college working on P25 and frankly it's old already, even though only a relatively few organizations have embraced it. In fact, elements probably would have never been finalized had it not been for the federal government's ultimatum: finish it or we'll make our own standard. Here's the report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07301.pdf look at the timeline on pp. 39, 40. (whoops - I already referred the link in a previous post, check those pages anyway for how drawn out this has been)

That said, every manufacturer, with the possible exception of the secondary tier subscriber equipment manufacturers, has come up with their proprietary derivative of P25, such as Wide Pulse Astro (which DOES NOT meet 2013 spectrum efficiency standards), P25-IP, DES-OFB with XL enabled, ADP, etc. That's not even looking at trunking "enhancements" that make 'nice to have' features work only on their own kinds of radios.

Radio is changing way faster than the glacial speed of the P25 process. By the time a P25 Phase 2 standard is adopted (some people who are involved in the process tell me it may resemble - but will not be - TETRA or OpenSky to achieve 6.25 equivalency), other people believe new systems that are actually broadband will be available. The contention is not whether this will happen... it will... it is over whether or not the public safety agency will build this, like a trunked system, or a "benevolent entity" such as CyrenCall (O'Brien hasn't gone away yet) or Verizon or some yet to evolve company will. Without getting into the political or financial implications of either... that's a discussion for the Tavern... radio will be run as an application on a data device rather than the primary function of the device. P25 will have been supplanted at that point.

If that ever comes to fruition, I believe that the only way to monitor anything on that kind of system will be to get it as streaming audio from the agency itself if they decide to webcast it.

Then it will be a disaster in Ctrabs' terms.

 

[kenisned]

I am not very well educated on radio systems such as this Tetra...or even P25.

However, I'm am an end user working for multiple agencies.

My township fire and ems are on an incredible analog VHF High system with multiple receivers and a repeater.

Works incredible. Almost 100% portable radio coverage throughout this 32 square mile "hilly" township. There are some dead spots and we believe that relocating the transmitter may help alleviate that. However, I've always been told that it is nearly impossible to have 100% coverage.

That said, I'm nervous about the more intricate systems that I see coming online everyday. When you are in the business of disasters, you think in terms of the "Big" one.

I don't want a voice system to be reliant on computers. Granted, right now we rely on a voter and repeater, but these are easy components to replace or to have as redundant. Using generators and a back up system are easy.

I understand the spectrum concerns... and the limited frequencies as they are currently allocated. However, the reasons that we are so crowded was poor planning or at least the inability to see how much the commercial need for frequencies would be.

SO...what should happen is the commercial use of the radio spectrum should be pointed to these new systems. PUBLIC SAFETY should use the more reliable systems. I think that NJ's trunked system is as complicated as it should ever get.

<shrug> it's s simplistic point of view, but I've been all over the US at one disaster or another and the best sytems seem to be the simplest.

 

[Raccon]

Thanks for the response and clarification, 902.

Works incredible. Almost 100% portable radio coverage throughout this 32 square mile "hilly" township. There are some dead spots and we believe that relocating the transmitter may help alleviate that. However, I've always been told that it is nearly impossible to have 100% coverage.

Technically it is possible but it's a question if it's financially feasable. If there is a coverage hole you can use a repeater (I mean the booster type) or add another base station (which are often called repeaters in analog systems), or relocate the transmitter as you say (though it might result in a blank spot somewhere else if the new spot is not "perfect").

I don't want a voice system to be reliant on computers. Granted, right now we rely on a voter and repeater, but these are easy components to replace or to have as redundant. Using generators and a back up system are easy.

Virtually anything can be made redundant, even it's computer controlled. The base stations, the switches, the components/units in the switch and/or base station, the transmission lines etc.
And you can have computerized portable / mobile systems powered by generators. There is a solution for everything, as long as you have enough $$$.

SO...what should happen is the commercial use of the radio spectrum should be pointed to these new systems. PUBLIC SAFETY should use the more reliable systems. I think that NJ's trunked system is as complicated as it should ever get.

Agree, they should be reliable, and TETRA for example is. (Not familiar with the NJ system, so can't comment.)

<shrug> it's s simplistic point of view, but I've been all over the US at one disaster or another and the best sytems seem to be the simplest.

True, most of the time simple is better but then there are cases where you need a more complex system because it has to do more than just providing voice service in a limited area to (perhaps) a limited number of users. But that depends on the requirements of the network operator and users, though the trend is towards shared networks (it's cheaper in the long run, and reduces equipment/antenna clutter at the sites) where you can have inter-agency communication when needed but still ensure privacy (by means of VPNs). And of course digital systems allow for all kinds of data applications.

 

[kb2vxa]

Hi stynd and all,

Are you INSANE?! A remark like that on a public forum is like shouting from the mountain top ARREST ME! Having had close personal contact with a major contributor to Monitoring Times back in the late 90s who developed decryption software and got busted by the feds for his blabbermouth I could tell you a long tale of woe but I won't. Let it suffice to say they harried him to death almost literally, dragging him from California into court in Brooklyn NY only he died of cancer shortly before his case came due. You may not be so lucky unless you too have a terminal illness.

601, I have words for you and the nicest one of them is "rat" so here's hoping you're joking.

Encryption is a SENSITIVE subject that should NEVER be discussed openly because like they said in WW2, loose lips sink ships. I have seen it over and over again, each slip of the lip has made them toughen up so all you guys are accomplishing is making it worse, MUCH worse!

Damn, I'm so mad I could SPIT!

 

[kenisned]

Encryption is a SENSITIVE subject that should NEVER be discussed openly because like they said in WW2, loose lips sink ships.

There is no issue with discussing it....it's doing it that will get you into trouble. I think we all agree that it's 100% wrong to violate any law.

Take a deep breath, in through the nose out through the mouth!