PS - Way to go Harris County for being concerned about interoperability. UHF TETRA? Seriously? With Columbus and WARRS nearby?
I don't understand why so many people think the only means of achieving interoperability is for every public safety agency in every county, every state and across our nation to be using the same type of technology (i.e., P25) and operating in the same frequency band (i.e., 800 MHz). Interoperability today is not rocket science with all of the various methods and technologies we have available to make the radios operating in the various frequency bands and varying technologies communicate with each other. Here in Georgia we have the Georgia Interoperability Network (a Statewide Motobridge System that resides in every County owned and operated 9-1-1 Center in our State, plus in other key locations), a large number of Raytheon/JPS ACU-1000 interoperability switches mounted in Mobile Communications Vehicles (MCVs) and even some mounted in fixed locations like 9-1-1 Centers and EOCs, command vehicles equipped with the ICRI (Incident Commanders Radio Interface) by C-AT, the IOpt CommTac-2 by Trident Micro Systems and cross band repeaters, so I think we have interoperability covered very well in our State.
People need to realize that each city and county must take care of providing the best and most affordable two-way radio communications solution within their jurisdiction first and everything else must be taken care of afterwards. Facts:
1. Every city and or county cannot afford P25 (both upfront costs and annual reoccurring maintenance costs).
2. Every city and or county does not need P25 to achieve interoperability;
3. Every city and or county doesn't need to pay for all of the features and functions of an expensive P25 trunked radio system when all they use their radios for is to conduct standard push-to-talk capabilities to coordinate and deliver public safety services;
4. Every city and or county does not need to pay for a system that gives them 10 to 15 times or more the coverage than they need on an average day (Example: a city that covers 10 square miles does not need to pay for 500 square miles of coverage). Many city, college and university police departments are coerced into splitting the annual maintenance costs of a countywide system, and some even a regional system, which puts these smaller agencies in the position of paying for way more than they need or will ever use.
Agencies need to step back and take a hard look at how often interoperability is needed or used on weekly, monthly and annual basis then look at all of the options that can provide interoperability and compare costs. Example: a city fire department on average needs to communicate with the county fire department via two-way radio about once a month, so what it the best and most economical way to achieve this? Is it more economical for the city fire department to remain on their VHF analog conventional system and purchase an 800 MHz P25 mobile radio on the county's radio system and a cross band repeater interface kit for every fire engine in their fleet to allow the Lieutenant or Captain on the engine to enable interoperability between city fire personnel and county fire personnel at the same incident scene or would it be more economical for the city fire department to purchase an 800 MHz P25 mobile radio and four 800 MHz P25 portable radios per fire apparatus, plus pay for the maintenance on the entire fleet of 800 MHz P25 radios and pay the county an annual fee per radio to be on the county's 800 MHz System? This same comparison could be used even in cases where an agency is looking at a VHF or UHF digital system such as MotoTRBO, NEXEDGE, TETRA, etc., so you can see there are many more things for an agency to consider other than just picking which radio looks the best.
I have been employed in the public safety communications profession for more than 33 years working in large, medium and small agencies in both full time and part-time positions and I have learned budgets and technologies are always a major challenge regardless of the size of the agency I worked for. I have learned there is usually more than one way to achieve a goal, but the problem is most agencies have tunnel vision and simply refuse to look at other options or feel they don't have the time to do any type of comparison. Many agencies are pressured into making a decision by both a vendor and one or more adjacent jurisdictions without being able to consider other options. This is unfortunate, but is the truth.
- Merry Christmas, I do appreciate everything guys 
