Trying for another statewide system

[brey1234]

The Statewide Wireless Network (SWN) will hold an Advisory Council Meeting on Thursday, March 25, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., in Albany, New York.



The 27 member SWN Advisory Council assists in the development and implementation of an integrated statewide communications system; consults with CIO/OFT regarding state purchases of information and communications technology; and makes recommendations to state elected leaders concerning the availability and reliability of communications to ensure timely assistance in even the most challenging of areas, such as underground mass transit systems and mountainous terrain.



In keeping with the Governor’s policy on open meetings, the meeting will be web cast for public access and will be available through either of the following links:



http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/asxfiles-live/1c2winlive6580.asx

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avwebreallivemt1077/live.rm/play



The webcast will be available on the Office for Technology web site for 30 days following the meeting.



Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010

Time: 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Location: Empire State Plaza Concourse

Meeting Rooms 2 and 3

Albany, NY



For additional information please contact the SWN Program Office by email at sipo@cio.ny.gov or by phone at (518) 474-9112.

 

[MB]

The radio system failed now there is a big push for a statewide broadband network. They are also encouraging state agencies to work with county agencies in developing county or regional communication systems.

 

[DaveNF2G]

27 people trying to keep their places at the State feeding trough.

 

[Warthog1]

Where the heck is New York going to find the money for a new system ? Perhaps they will print 'Radio Stamps'. with any luck, if they do decide to try again, it will simply be a P-25 trunked system like Saratoga County's new system.

 

[CqDx]

Let's start,
Pizza tax...check
Layoff teachers...check
Pay raise to everyone in Albany...check

They will just push the football to every county in the state and tell them if you don't build your own system, you going to be left in the dark, oh by the way, give us your tax revenue so that we can afford the raise.

 

[Warthog1]

Maybe this is where that soda tax is going to come in....or maybe.....Tolls on State highways ??

 

[MB]

They are in business to stay in business..

 

[radiomanNJ1]

They drank the Kool Aid once and it did not work.

The Statewide Wireless Network (SWN) will hold an Advisory Council Meeting on Thursday, March 25, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., in Albany, New York.



The 27 member SWN Advisory Council assists in the development and implementation of an integrated statewide communications system; consults with CIO/OFT regarding state purchases of information and communications technology; and makes recommendations to state elected leaders concerning the availability and reliability of communications to ensure timely assistance in even the most challenging of areas, such as underground mass transit systems and mountainous terrain.



In keeping with the Governor’s policy on open meetings, the meeting will be web cast for public access and will be available through either of the following links:



http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/asxfiles-live/1c2winlive6580.asx

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avwebreallivemt1077/live.rm/play



The webcast will be available on the Office for Technology web site for 30 days following the meeting.



Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010

Time: 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Location: Empire State Plaza Concourse

Meeting Rooms 2 and 3

Albany, NY



For additional information please contact the SWN Program Office by email at sipo@cio.ny.gov or by phone at (518) 474-9112.

 

[K2LES]

We don't need a statewide "system"

What we need is a statewide interoperability *standard* that each agency is responsible for complying with. Unfortunately what we have today is the result of years of protecting "turf" by various public safety agencies and the lack of foresight by the FCC in years past.

In a limited fashion we already have 155.475 (national PD), 155.370 (statewide PD), 155.160(?) (EMS/SAR) and 45.88 (statewide fire). But many systems are moving off VHF and onto UHF or 800 MHz. Having multiple radios in every vehicle presents a logistical challenge.

Some counties are finally bringing all of their local PD's, FD's and EMS's under a countywide system. But that's only good for the county as neighboring counties are locked out in a manner of speaking.

In a perfect world, any police officer should be able to communicate with any firefighter and EMS responder without having to go through an intermediary. Adjoining and overlapping jurisdictions should also have the same ability to communicate.

The obvious choice would to take advantage of all the spectrum once occupied by analog TV stations and start fresh. But this would cost billions and takes years to implement with every agency having a plan of their own they'll claim is better than the rest.

No easy answer, but a expensive statewide system (which was partially implemented by MA/COM and failed) is not the answer.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I've said this before and I will say it again.

We do not need new radio equipment to "solve" the "interoperability problem." We need training for and compliance with NIMS. A unified command post, where commanders from all responding services and agencies can communicate face-to-face, takes the radio issues out of the picture.

 

[K2LES]

Command post not always feasible

Sometimes the firefighters need to talk directly to the cops and there isn't time to get a command post up and running. Give them all common "TAC" frequencies on their radio and move everyone into the same band - no reason why the FD should be on 46.xx, the PD on 460.xxx and the EMT's on 155.xxx all requiring a middleman to relay messages. It wastes time and the message gets lost in the translation.

And on top of that - let's be careful about transitioning away from analog to a pure digital system. A radio system is useless when you can't talk to someone 100 feet away from you because the "system" isn't working right. Analog simplex still has it's place.

 

[newsnick175]

I go along with Dave on this. Anyone who heard the tapes of the common fire ground channel during 9-11 knows how too many people having access to a common channel means no one will get there message through. The moment you stop transmitting some one else is calling out. The only way to deal with a large multi agency job is with a unified command set-up. Cops and firefighters are directed by their own command and if they're trying to talk to each other, they are not doing their own jobs.

 

[K2KOH]

This is what kills me...people are blaming the state workers for the state's poor financial condition...and yet they continue to throw money away! The accidental governor and his cronies are true imbeciles!

 

[MB]

I agree 100%. Most times the communication is needed right away not after a unified command post is set up. One way to solve this is to use the VTAC, UTAC, 8TAC, IR, VFIRE, VMED and VLAW frequencies. In my opinion every Public Safety agency should have these frequencies programmed in their radios in accordance to the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide. This would solve most of the interoperability problems and this is exactly what this guide was made for.

http://kansastag.ks.gov/AdvHTML_Doc_Upload/NIFOG 1_3.pdf

Sometimes the firefighters need to talk directly to the cops and there isn't time to get a command post up and running. Give them all common "TAC" frequencies on their radio and move everyone into the same band - no reason why the FD should be on 46.xx, the PD on 460.xxx and the EMT's on 155.xxx all requiring a middleman to relay messages. It wastes time and the message gets lost in the translation.

And on top of that - let's be careful about transitioning away from analog to a pure digital system. A radio system is useless when you can't talk to someone 100 feet away from you because the "system" isn't working right. Analog simplex still has it's place.

 

[jim202]

Until New York solves two major problems, there never will be a state wide "Radio Interoperability
System". I don't think new York can solve either one. The first and most troublesome is the politics.
Too many people don't want mutual aid frequencies or channels. That is just how they were brought up.
The department chief's were not brought up that way and until they bite crow, I don't think you will ever see
it on any one's agenda.

The other major hurdle to be overcome is how to pay for it. The state tried it once and came to figure
out they couldn't pay for it so threw the vendor out the door. That's not what they will say, but let us
wait for the court case to point the finger and see who is holding the upper hand when the jury awards
the settlement.

Jim

 

[CqDx]

Couldn't agree more Jim. There is simply no such mentality exist in the state. If the idea wasn't in everyone's mind, why would they even bother to go forward.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I'm not sure what people think is so complicated about "setting up" a unified command post. The leaders of each agency need to be in one spot. How time-consuming is that?

If you're thinking in terms of getting out all of the toys and setting up some technology, then you're not thinking NIMS. It's about putting the right people together.

 

[radionerd13669]

Some people over think the concept.I have travled around and I have seen diffrent types. Up here we have mobile command centers for all agencies to come together and work together out of the mobile command vehicle.

I have also seen some where it was a big room during an ice storm and it contained a table and telephone for every agency involved . THey had the power company telephone police fire ems dpw ect all working out of the one room coordinating their efforts.And there were only a few handheld radios involved lol.

 

[MB]

Your right it shouldn't take to long to set up a unified command post. However, I am talking about everyday communications and small time incidents when police need to talk to fire and EMS and vice versa. Right now we don't even have that.

I'm not sure what people think is so complicated about "setting up" a unified command post. The leaders of each agency need to be in one spot. How time-consuming is that?

If you're thinking in terms of getting out all of the toys and setting up some technology, then you're not thinking NIMS. It's about putting the right people together.

 

[radioman2001]

Unified command doesn't have to set up in a building, close to the event is best. Our Chiefs/Officers carry 3 and sometimes 4 radios on the same frequency band to co-ordinate a large scene.(Dispatch, Command, Interior, Water, EMS, Traffic Control, Support) even more if you have helicopter operations going on. PD will be at the command post co-ordinating their people, other services such as Highway can be brought in as needed. You don't need a multi-billion dollar system for inter-agency comms, just well trained people who can talk to their peers without a big head. Yes it would be nice to have it all on one channel, but that doesn't work all the time. Too much traffic, don't need to hear (We need some bottle water up here) on the Interior channel. I believe IP based frequency patching is a way to go, until the Feds decide to pay for a national radio system for emergency responders.
Personaly I believe the reason for the push for the SWN in New York is so the State Police can get encrypted radios. There are also a lot of Police agencies that would love to go on the system for the same reason, and not have to be held responsible when something goes wrong.
As far as Police being able to talk to Fire and other agencies, we have common channels programmed in all radios to do that. I am pushing the V-Tac and U-Tac channels to be programmed in all of our radios.