Washington, DC - DHS’s $1 Billion Radio System Doesn’t Work

[radiodude817]

My point about mentioning the FCC was to say political appointees / non technical personal are making decisions in every branch of government and maybe this decision making should be left to more qualified people.

Training personnel better is a good idea. If you have the staffing and the budget to do so. I know in my area there have been openings listed on the FED job web site on and off for about two years.

Some Contracts for communication equipment systems are now requiring the manufacturer provide and pay for the term of the contract a system administrator. Really? The administrator should be working for the agency not the manufacturer.

This all goes to the systems are too complex for the average Joe to understand. You need to be an RF technician, an electronics technician and have a working knowledge of IP and routing systems. Yes, there are highly qualified individuals out there because I know a few of them. However, there are not enough of them to go around. So what happens? They search for the best paying job with the best
benefits.

If I learned one thing RF is RF, "going Digital" is not going to solve preexisting communication problems. The physics of radio waves or outside interference has not changed. Maybe you don't hear the problems anymore but, that doesn't mean they are not there. Unfortunately one by one local gov't agency's here are changing to Digital. My point in stating this is the larger the entity, the larger the system, the more money spent. The greater likelihood there will be bigger system issues.

I sit here some evenings and mornings when there are band openings and listen to conversations being blocked. Immediately it is assumed it's a radio or system issue.

If I were an system administrator the only way I would think about employing a "Secure Strapped at all times system" would be a Saturation Coverage situation with one channel non voting non trunked repeater.

So where is the issue? The technology, the Topography, the technicians. Maybe all three and more.

 

[jeatock]

Officers ought to have to qualify with their portable radios, much the same as they qualify with a weapon.
They're almost as essential, perhaps more. Training!

OMG! What?? Train on radios? You MUST be kidding!

I slept through all ten minutes of training last year so I don't know anything other than ON/OFF and that big button that lets me talk to my own. I always stay on "Channel 1" so "Someone Else" can relay vital information. That's what they get paid to do. Besides, It's easier to throw a ***** fit when something doesn't work perfectly.

</sarcasm>

Us "Old Time RF Guys" have shrinking sympathy for the new blood that turns in a bug report because there was a hint of static while they were trying to listen from the bottom of a well far past the edge of designed coverage.

 

[SCPD]

OMG! What?? Train on radios? You MUST be kidding!

I slept through all ten minutes of training last year so I don't know anything other than ON/OFF and that big button that lets me talk to my own. I always stay on "Channel 1" so "Someone Else" can relay vital information. That's what they get paid to do. Besides, It's easier to throw a ***** fit when something doesn't work perfectly.

</sarcasm>

Us "Old Time RF Guys" have shrinking sympathy for the new blood that turns in a bug report because there was a hint of static while they were trying to listen from the bottom of a well far past the edge of designed coverage.

I've found locals to welcome training more on equipment then federal end law enforcment. I've noticed fire end of fed seems to welcome training and like learning how to use equipment. Now with cbp I noticed a yeah yeah I'm not stupid attitude. NPS seems to welcome or want to know more many wishing they could learn more about rf or trying to self troubleshoot comms When problems arrise.

 

[SCPD]

The fcc needs to mandate in rural areas for fire a exception for wide band use for analog. I don't see how it would hurt.

Federal and state wildland fire agencies began switching to narrowband prior to the 2005 NTIA federal mandate and the 2013 FCC state and local mandate. Turning back the clock to allow them wideband (25 kHz) emissions is not possible or necessary. These agencies have realized benefits from narrowband operations, primarily the the larger number of frequencies available for their use.

Take a look at the large number of nationwide interoperability disaster/mutual aid frequencies with nationwide clearance for example. Some of these were in existence prior to narrowband operations, such as the three fire mutual aid frequencies, 154.2800, 154.2650 and 154.2950, often referred to as "White 1", "White 2" and "White 3." Law enforcement only had one, 155.475 and its nationwide mutual aid use was very limited. Post narrowband the lists in each band, particularly VHF-High and the 450-470 portion of UHF have been expanded 3 or more times.

The National Incident Radio Support Cache commonly referred to as the "NIFC system" has benefitted from narrowband operations. A minimum of 5 new command nets, and a hugely expanded air-to-ground and air--air FM frequency set is now in place. The gains are not fairly represented by numbers of new frequencies in the NIFC system as local communications centers, BLM districts, national forests and national parks have been able to add both regional and local command, tactical and flight following nets and the NIFC system is now going to be reserved for national incident management team use on "national incidents" only (Type I and II incidents) as Type III, IV and V incidents can be handled with these new regional and local frequencies made available by narrowband operations. I think the benefits far exceed the liabilities.

An increase of about 15-30% in the number of sites has occurred since narrowband operations began in the four western states I travel in the most (California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico) I regularly travel in. Many of those were already in areas of marginal wideband communications and a large share of them might have been added even if narrowbanding was not a factor. I think the story would be very different if digital was added to the mix. I hope natural resource agencies are not planning a widespread conversion of their systems to digital. Looking at the NPS I'm not sure if digital is off the table. Grand Canyon is the largest and most rugged of the units they are switching to digital ops and their experience with it might determine what direction that agency follows in the future. Grand Canyon is not the best test case as I don't think they plan to add coverage to the western, river portion of the park, an area that has never had coverage.

I will post a little more on the subject later, specifically relative to the CBP and the GAO.

 

[flythunderbird]

DHS Inspector General: $430M interoperable radio system doesn't work

Personnel within the Department of Homeland Security still cannot communicate with one another during a terrorist attack, even though the federal agency has spent $430 million on radios since 9/11, an inspector general report found.

DHS's $430M radio upgrade after 9/11 virtually useless: report - Washington Times

Less than one-fourth of 1 percent of DHS radio users tested could access and use the specified common channel to communicate, and only 20 percent of those tested contained the correct program settings for the common channel, the inspector general found.

 

[PACNWDude]

This is just like any other government procured system, flawed from the beginning. Reminds me of other radio systems that are not compatible, inter-operable, or the lack of training prevents their use.

Nothing new and all too common in this country.

 

[mitbr]

Not really news Homeland Security fails at everything they do so....

 

[krokus]

With TSA's migration to MPSCS, they will have the ability to communicate with many other agencies.

Sent via Tapatalk

 

[ko6jw_2]

This issue has been discussed here over and over. The original idea was based on the faulty premise that everyone needs to talk to everyone else on an ad hoc basis. It also ignored the real communication problems on 9/11 that started with outmoded radio systems coupled with a massive infrastructure failure (the loss of the buildings where many repeaters were located). Next add government bureaucrats with no real understanding of communications and local government only too happy to take federal dollars for new toys. The rest is history.

Here in California fire mutual aid radio systems have been around for decades and have been made much easier by frequency agile radios. This really works in major fires and it didn't require massive federal money to make it happen.

The same cannot be said for law enforcement. We have a three county (Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura) mutual aid radio system. All law enforcement vehicles are equipped to use it. I have not heard any traffic on it for years. A multi-agency pursuit required various dispatchers to relay traffic when they could have coordinated on the mutual aid channel.

If there was a foolproof system, only fools would use it.

 

[krokus]

With TSA's migration to MPSCS, they will have the ability to communicate with many other agencies.

Sent via Tapatalk

To clarify: My earlier comment was moved here from a thread in the Michigan forum. TSA in Michigan is utilizing MPSCS for some of their communications.

Sent via Tapatalk