Why does......

[scmadhatter]

.....Oklahoma City feel the need to keep their police and fire dept transmissions secure from the general public, aside from obvious sensitve information issues? Have they documented instances where scanned transmissions have caused them problems? I am of the opinion that an informed, concerned citizen would benefit more than hurt our law enforcement, but maybe their experience has proven otherwise. I have recently moved here from out of state, so I haven't heard any arguments either pro or con, but where I came from it seemed to help the PD in regard to locating suspects. What is the general concensus?

 

[KD5WLX]

The general concensus among scanner listeners is that the cops what to hide their mistakes, and so it serves both the purpose you mention AND "open government"/freedom of information issues.

When it comes to the cops themselves, I can't say - I was a firefighter, not a cop - but what I "hear" is that the honest ones don't care, and the "bad" ones like the idea of encrypted comms. I don't know why, though - all radio traffic is "taped" (actually, digitally recorded in most cases) and can be retrieved (after the fact) through a freedom of information request, so they are only delaying the inevitable if they screw up.

There's also the issue of crooks using scanners to know where the cops are, to know where (and when) to run. But OK already has the provision for dealing with that - state law adds an additional charge if you USE a scanner in the commission of a crime - in other words, if you hold up the QT and get caught, you do time. If you lead the cops on a high speed chase AFTER robbing the QT, you get MORE time. And if you use a scanner to try and evade the cops, you get EVEN MORE time once they catch you.

My real concern over all these fancy systems, though is that the technologists are selling the administrators/governments a bill of goods. Everything they say is that these systems IMPROVE communications (interoperability, reliability, coverage, etc.) But the facts say otherwise. Moving one dept. onto a new band (800MHz trunking, in this case) only HURTS interop with surrounding depts. still on UHF (or even VHF!). "Patches" are complex and don't always work, especially cross band. The entire systems are dependent on the computers (which crash, sometimes at the most inopportune times). And all of this is BEFORE you throw in conflicting brands (M/A Comm vs Motorola) and technologies (Pro-voice vs. APCO 25 vs. various flavors of digital/encryption).

All of this of course leaves out the real issues -

1. departments don't like to talk to other departments (turf wars).
2. public servants want to learn how to do their jobs - talking on the radio is such a small part that few take any real interest in it.

Talk to any amateur radio operator, and you'll find that the "unpaid" communicators are much better at it than the vast majority of the "professional" people, even the dispatchers. They even build their own systems (even state wide). But that's to be expected. Don't ask them their opinions on the specifics of law enforcement - they won't even agree on what the law IS, let alone how to enforce it in a given situation.

 

[2112]

All I can do when scanner hobbyists claim that agencies move to systems that don't happen to be scannable in order to make personal attacks against scanner hobbyists or to "cover up mistakes" is shake my head. I'm certain that OKC (and other agencies that moved to systems unscannable by the available consumer technology at the time or those that encrypt) have many more pressing priorities than "I'm gonna make sure those scanner people suffer". To think otherwise is pretty short-sighted.

The general concensus among scanner listeners is that the cops what to hide their mistakes, and so it serves both the purpose you mention AND "open government"/freedom of information issues.

That's because the average scanner listener is not knowledgeable about the entirety of police operations (or fire ops, or EMS, etc.). There is WAY more to it than the radio traffic. All cops usually care about is "can I talk to ___ on the radio". Further, "open government" and "freedom of information" regulations and/or laws do not mean that every piece of communication is available by every means in use to the general public. For example, the general public does not have eavesdropping access to inbound 9-1-1 calls at the time they are made. Recordings are available after the fact. Therefore, there is no "right" for anyone, even those from neighboring agencies, to be able to understand what happens to be transmitted on any given radio system, conventional, trunked, or otherwise (though limiting such access to this degree certainly hampers interoperability). If recordings are made, they will be available after the fact.

When it comes to the cops themselves, I can't say - I was a firefighter, not a cop - but what I "hear" is that the honest ones don't care, and the "bad" ones like the idea of encrypted comms. I don't know why, though - all radio traffic is "taped" (actually, digitally recorded in most cases) and can be retrieved (after the fact) through a freedom of information request, so they are only delaying the inevitable if they screw up.

All radio traffic is NOT taped. I've worked for agencies that do not record their radio traffic. I'm not saying that this is a good idea, though. All I'm saying is that to say that *all* radio traffic is recorded is patently false.

My real concern over all these fancy systems, though is that the technologists are selling the administrators/governments a bill of goods. Everything they say is that these systems IMPROVE communications (interoperability, reliability, coverage, etc.) But the facts say otherwise. Moving one dept. onto a new band (800MHz trunking, in this case) only HURTS interop with surrounding depts. still on UHF (or even VHF!). "Patches" are complex and don't always work, especially cross band. The entire systems are dependent on the computers (which crash, sometimes at the most inopportune times). And all of this is BEFORE you throw in conflicting brands (M/A Comm vs Motorola) and technologies (Pro-voice vs. APCO 25 vs. various flavors of digital/encryption).

Being realistic, who might know more about professional public safety radio systems: those that engineer/users of such systems, or hams/scannerists who're unhappy that an agency chose to move to system that they can't monitor (for now)? Now, I'm not saying that I know your background, WLX, after all, you could be the greatest PS radio engineer that ever lived. But that you're willing to push for this misguided "general consensus of scanner listeners..." as reality leads me to believe otherwise. Anyhow, I think I'll take the former over the latter when reckoning how public safety radio systems perform, and which might be the best to meet certain needs for my agency.

What are these facts that you reference?

The point is, yes, moving a department to a different band can hurt interoperability. However, departments that worked closely together on radio before the move generally make sure that they can still work between themselves on the radio after the move.

To slam TRS's and other systems as the result of the technology involved (computers, etc.) is poorly founded. Conventional radio systems crash as well... like when radios break or power supplies fail, or a single-site repeater takes a lightning strike. In fact, TRS's have many more backup contingency options available in general than do corresponding conventional systems.

Patches rely on dispatchers making connections to other radio systems via their console. They are trained to do so. They practice doing so. Much like they make connections to other phones via their switchboard, which takes a series of 7-10 keypresses normally. 9-1-1 transfers require a series of learned/practiced keypresses as well. This leads me to a series of questions:

(1) Why would these dispatchers are incapable of learning and performing making a patch via a series of keypresses?

(2) How is this any more difficult than changing channels on a conventional public safety radio console (like a Zetron or Motorola, etc.)?

(3) Hams perform such tasks regularly via repeater systems with DTMF-enabled controllers to bring up links to other repeaters. How is this any different?

(4) Why would hams (read: hobbyists) who do this once in a while be more capable of learning how to make radio interconnects than dispatchers who do this regularly day in and day out?

All of this of course leaves out the real issues -

1. departments don't like to talk to other departments (turf wars).
2. public servants want to learn how to do their jobs - talking on the radio is such a small part that few take any real interest in it.

1. This varies from department to department. My experiences have been that the larger departments do not like to talk to other departments, and that smaller departments talk to each other occassionally. But again, this is a generality; there are exceptions. For instance, Norman's TRS is about to undergo upgrades that link it to the Edmond and (eventual) Moore TRS's, as well as the DPS/Tulsa TRS. This, taken with recent Homeland Securty interoperability grant awards that are putting DPS/Tulsa TRS radios in most comms centers along I-44 will give Norman the ablility to talk to most communities in the surrounding 5 counties (this article (http://newsok.com/article/1796841/) says "every", I don't necessarily believe that).

2. I dunno about public servants wanting to learn how to do their jobs... I've worked with ALOT of public servants, and they are by and large either (1) lazy, (2) know it all so that they can't possibly be taught anything, or (3) are too busy trying to push their own agenda that they don't have the time or inkling to learn how to do their job. For those public servants who don't fall into these categories, thank you for remembering and caring enough to do your job. Radio is an important part of the puzzle, but denying scannerists the ability to listen is not the primary goal in switching to unscannable systems.

Note: there are definitely turf wars, just like there are in ham public service. Agendas clash and this person knows more than that person and blah blah blah...

Talk to any amateur radio operator, and you'll find that the "unpaid" communicators are much better at it than the vast majority of the "professional" people, even the dispatchers. They even build their own systems (even state wide). But that's to be expected. Don't ask them their opinions on the specifics of law enforcement - they won't even agree on what the law IS, let alone how to enforce it in a given situation.

I also happen to be a ham... have been for over 16 years. Been involved with ALOT of ham public service. I completely disagree with the minimization that hams are better communicators than the pros/dispatchers. I've actually been disenchanted with the ham public service thing for some time because of the general inability of hams to actually be professional and efficient in their communications (as opposed to pushing agendas or wanting to use public service nets for chit-chat). Similar issues face the pros/dispatchers for some of the reasons that I mentioned above about public servants doing their jobs. In the end, tho, it's like comparing apples and oranges; ham public service is not professional public safety, and the technical and operating needs of both differ in many respects. To be able to evaluate whether or not one is better than the other really needs to take into account what situation the radio is attempting to provide service to.

FWIW, there are many, many statewide public safety systems out there... one merely has to flip through database contained on this site to see that.

It's important to realize that much of the new radio-system building (TRS and otherwise) going on right now is the result of grant awards, many of which have come from the Department of Homeland Security in recent years. DHS has specific requirements about what can be purchased with their awards, and certain cost, security, and interoperability standards must be met. Because Norman's upgrade was the result of such an award is probably partial explanation for the project that they are about to put forth.

I'm not sure how OKC's system is funded. Regardless, they will be able to connect to the agencies that they want/need to connect to. At the same time, they, like all the other governments out there, are under no obligation to make sure that their radio traffic is scannable by consumer-grade equipment. However, for those of you who just have to listen to OKC, I suggest that you buy a Pro-Voice capable radio and have it authorized and programmed appropriately.

FWIW, I too was disappointed that OKC chose Pro-Voice, but I'm not gonna let my disppointment cloud reality.

Peace,

 

[freqscout]

Well there are a few rumors that need to be dispelled about the OKC TRS that have also been addressed in other forums from time.

A.)The system was not purchased to bash or block scanner users. That was not a large piece of the puzzle at all. OKC is sprawling city that covers over 600 square miles. We need to have handheld access everywhere in it as all of these areas are developing. There were SO many areas NOT covered by the conventional system that something HAD to be done. I was without handheld coverage MANY times when I needed it. The old system was linked by phone cables and one time a backhoe operator for a construction company cut every one of the cables on accident causing the entire system of repeaters and receivers, MDT's, and emergency telephone lines to go down minus the primary Springlake receiver and transmitter that were mounted on the EOC tower. There were other instances from time to time where receivers, transmitters, and other radio items were failing due to sheer age and antiquated design. It was definately time for a change.

B.)We are glad that most scanners will not listen to us! There are so many burglars, robbers, etc that are using scanners in the commission of their crimes and it ALLOWS them to get away because they know we are coming, how many people are coming, and possibly where from if they are paying close enough attention. The law about using a scanner does not stop those who are already committing violent felonies because they already don't have any regard for the law. This unscannable feature is not an absolute barrier to listening in. You too could purchase an EDACS radio and listen. It isn't so much that you can't listen it is that you can't decode with your scanner. So it isn't that it is impossible it is that the barrier to entry is higher.

C.)We didn't go digital to cover up our screw ups. There is little in communication that is a "screw up". If it is a procedure violation then it will be addressed. We went digital to improve our ability to communicate. The clarity of the EDACS is 100 times better than the audio on our VHF system and the city wide coverage is well over 95%(per contract) even into outlying cities and heavy-built buildings and that is just on a handheld!

D.)As mentioned before, the TRS has so many back-ups to its back-ups that it far more failsafe than our VHF system. As far as changing bands we are on VHF and 95% of all other agencies are on UHF. So there was a band problem to begin with. To rectify the situation we have mutual aid talkgroups that are linked with each individual city in the metro except Moore (they REFUSED to let us talk to them, their fault not ours). To activitate the link we do not need a dispatcher we just merely switch to the correct talkgroup and the system automatically activates the link. We also have TG's for the State's RMA talkgroups. Contrary to most peoples' beliefs the "turf war" is actually not the case AS MUCH in OKC. We have an outstanding working relationship with just about every agency in the OKC Metro area. When we developed the TRS we signed a mutual aid agreement to with all of them to allow us to talk on their channels via the links and all but Moore PD agreed. We spend a lot of time assisting other agencies in the Metro, just listen to Hefner radio on any night of the week and you will hear us helping Warr Acres, Village, and Bethany. We help them and they help us. There was time last week when we went to a bar fight and there were three Warr Acres guys helping us out. We lend the use of our dogs and helicopter to all of the agencies as well. Because we believe that Mutual Aid is so key to our job as law enforcement we even have policies requiring us to assist other agencies if they request help. Mutual Aid in the Metro (at least on the PD side since I am obviously not a Firefighter) is almost a dream. Now I will be able to talk to them when I am out of my car on a scene with them just by switching my handheld to a different TG...SWEET! There are so many of us scanning that we almost always know when another agency gets into something big and we are almost always on the way before they ask for help. The other cool thing is that we can also link other agencies together by merely linking TG's (that has to be done at the dispatch terminal). So if there is a large disaster in multiple counties or cities then we can all talk to each other.

E.) The system was paid for via a sales tax that was imposed for a couple of years. This was voted on and approved by the people after a tragic wreck between us and OHP. We will now be able to talk to them as well.

F.)Everything is capable of being taped but the ones who finally decide are the commanders in IA. We are ALWAYS under the assumption that we are being taped. We don't want to screw up and if we do 99 times out of 100 it won't be something that you will hear on the radio (other than grammatical, location, and mispronounced word errors).

G.)The M/A Com rep actually recommended that we encrypt EVERYTHING! We decided otherwise. We only encrypted the sensitive channels (Special Investigations that regular street officers don't even have access to) and a few others to allow street officers a TG for passing sensitive info. So we are even trying to be more "open" with our communications than we are designed for. We could activate encryption and ESK (see wiki for explanation) and then no one would be able to hear us that we don't want to but we chose to allow our system to be more open. We even allowed the media to purchase radios and gave them a media talkgroup on our system. How many TG's they got is still an issue of debate but there is at least an agreement allowing the media to be on our system. You CANNOT hide any screw ups from them on the air so again we didn't do this to cover anything up.

H.)I would have to agree that there is much to be desired from the ham community in emergency communication in OKC. We have secured a grant from homeland security to modify the old EOC for an Emergency Communications System center. This center is going to have a ham desk with the ability to communicate to area hams. Hopefully we will be able to coordinate the ham community a little more with this addition to the emergency services of OKC.

I would be glad to answer any other questions.

 

[N_Jay]

It wasn't me! :wink:

I did not put 2112 and freqscout up to it!

Honest!! :twisted: :lol:

 

[CommShrek]

Talk to any amateur radio operator, and you'll find that the "unpaid" communicators are much better at it than the vast majority of the "professional" people, even the dispatchers. They even build their own systems (even state wide). But that's to be expected. Don't ask them their opinions on the specifics of law enforcement - they won't even agree on what the law IS, let alone how to enforce it in a given situation.

I would agree with most of your post except this part. The majority of the amateur radio operators I've run across would never make it in the professional world. There's a lot more to do than just "talk on the radio". It's also only a handful of them that build their own systems. The majority of them talk on those systems, but only a smattering of them actually had a hand in building it.

 

[crayon]

Well done 2112 and freqscout.

The M/A Com rep actually recommended that we encrypt EVERYTHING!

lol. I'm sure that he did and whilst doing so his eyes were rolling with dollar signs!

 

[Heterodyne]

I would agree with most of your post except this part. The majority of the amateur radio operators I've run across would never make it in the professional world. There's a lot more to do than just "talk on the radio". It's also only a handful of them that build their own systems. The majority of them talk on those systems, but only a smattering of them actually had a hand in building it.

Well said. It's the delusion that ham radio will come to the rescue at any time that fuels the whole "Ham radio is an essential service" myth.

My local ARES unit has more men over 60, men on canes and on mobility scooters than men who aren't.... they only thing they seem to be good at is telling people what an essential service they are, and complaining about how they never are taken seriously by the emergency services. One has to wonder.

And don't even get me started on the whole idea that police departments are intentionally sabotaging scanner listeners by switching bands and/or going encrypted. What whiny drivel! Most dispatchers/communications officers aren't even aware that in the clear TRS can be monitored by scanners. Scanner listeners hardly even show up on the radar of most officers or police departments. They've got more important things to worry about than some 400 lb dateless wonder sitting in his barcolounger listening to 50 Unidens wondering why the local dispatchers don't ask for his opinion on matters.

Sometimes I think the scanner community's troubling self-importance is overshadowed by the ham radio community's DANGEROUS self-arrogance.

 

[car2back]

lol.... interesting opinion! :lol:

how's everything in Taiwan going?

 

[scmadhatter]

As I am the original poster here I would like to respond.

***A.)The system was not purchased to bash or block scanner users. That was not a large piece of the puzzle at all.

I never said that a new system was bought to frustrate scanner users, I am not that paranoid. (not yet, anyway) However, since this was a available option rather than mandated by the hardware why would they opt for it, as it seems like maintaining an encrypted system could br more intensive than a non-encryted one would be, and yes, I understand that that there are occasions where a scrambled system would provide an advantage to law enforcement. However you yourself said that there is equipment available that could decrypt it, so this step wouldn't actually deter the serious bad guy.


***B.)We are glad that most scanners will not listen to us! There are so many burglars, robbers, etc that are using scanners in the commission of their crimes and it ALLOWS them to get away because they know we are coming, how many people are coming, and possibly where from if they are paying close enough attention. The law about using a scanner does not stop those who are already committing violent felonies because they already don't have any regard for the law. This unscannable feature is not an absolute barrier to listening in. You too could purchase an EDACS radio and listen. It isn't so much that you can't listen it is that you can't decode with your scanner. So it isn't that it is impossible it is that the barrier to entry is higher.

I am wondering if there are any statistics concerning the use of scanners during an illegal activity, or even any reliable best guesses for how often this might occur. Does the illegal use outweigh the potential good that could come out of scanner use by responsible citizens?



***C.)We didn't go digital to cover up our screw ups. There is little in communication that is a "screw up". If it is a procedure violation then it will be addressed. We went digital to improve our ability to communicate. The clarity of the EDACS is 100 times better than the audio on our VHF system and the city wide coverage is well over 95%(per contract) even into outlying cities and heavy-built buildings and that is just on a handheld!

***D.)As mentioned before, the TRS has so many back-ups to its back-ups that it far more failsafe than our VHF system. As far as changing bands we are on VHF and 95% of all other agencies are on UHF. So there was a band problem to begin with.

We haven't solved any band problems concerning communication with other city's agencies and as you mentioned cooperation between other PD's is crucial in fighting crime in our area. Don't we just use the mutual aid freqs as before, or am I confused? I know that internal agencies now can interact, but how often does this happen in OKC, other than between fire and PD?

***To rectify the situation we have mutual aid talkgroups that are linked with each individual city in the metro except Moore (they REFUSED to let us talk to them, their fault not ours). To activitate the link we do not need a dispatcher we just merely switch to the correct talkgroup and the system automatically activates the link. We also have TG's for the State's RMA talkgroups. Contrary to most peoples' beliefs the "turf war" is actually not the case AS MUCH in OKC. We have an outstanding working relationship with just about every agency in the OKC Metro area. When we developed the TRS we signed a mutual aid agreement to with all of them to allow us to talk on their channels via the links and all but Moore PD agreed. We spend a lot of time assisting other agencies in the Metro, just listen to Hefner radio on any night of the week and you will hear us helping Warr Acres, Village, and Bethany. We help them and they help us. There was time last week when we went to a bar fight and there were three Warr Acres guys helping us out. We lend the use of our dogs and helicopter to all of the agencies as well. Because we believe that Mutual Aid is so key to our job as law enforcement we even have policies requiring us to assist other agencies if they request help. Mutual Aid in the Metro (at least on the PD side since I am obviously not a Firefighter) is almost a dream. Now I will be able to talk to them when I am out of my car on a scene with them just by switching my handheld to a different TG...SWEET! There are so many of us scanning that we almost always know when another agency gets into something big and we are almost always on the way before they ask for help. The other cool thing is that we can also link other agencies together by merely linking TG's (that has to be done at the dispatch terminal). So if there is a large disaster in multiple counties or cities then we can all talk to each other.

***E.) The system was paid for via a sales tax that was imposed for a couple of years. This was voted on and approved by the people after a tragic wreck between us and OHP. We will now be able to talk to them as well.

I thought that OHP was on the Motorola system, so wouldn't the communication have to be on a mutual-aid freq anyway?

F.)Everything is capable of being taped but the ones who finally decide are the commanders in IA. We are ALWAYS under the assumption that we are being taped. We don't want to screw up and if we do 99 times out of 100 it won't be something that you will hear on the radio (other than grammatical, location, and mispronounced word errors).

G.)The M/A Com rep actually recommended that we encrypt EVERYTHING! We decided otherwise. We only encrypted the sensitive channels (Special Investigations that regular street officers don't even have access to) and a few others to allow street officers a TG for passing sensitive info. So we are even trying to be more "open" with our communications than we are designed for. We could activate encryption and ESK (see wiki for explanation) and then no one would be able to hear us that we don't want to but we chose to allow our system to be more open. We even allowed the media to purchase radios and gave them a media talkgroup on our system. How many TG's they got is still an issue of debate but there is at least an agreement allowing the media to be on our system. You CANNOT hide any screw ups from them on the air so again we didn't do this to cover anything up.

So, you are saying that we have entrusted the media with information that is so sensitive that the general public can't be entrusted to hear, and then we are supposed to wait and see what info will actually be relayed to us by the media?!?
you did say media, right? Hello, media/confidential information? What's wrong with this picture?

I agree with you that there was a need for a new system,but I would hate to see the general public shut totally out of the loop if all transmissions eventually are encrypted. I don't know that one could quantify the potential good that can come about with an unscrambled system anymore than one could could do the same for the illegal use that could occur.

Thanks for spending the time to explain the thinking behind the the system purchase. Very well thought out and organized so well that even a dipstick like myself could understand. Have a good day! Steve

 

[2112]

Great post, freqscout... only one little issue I'd like to expand upon:

As far as changing bands we are on VHF and 95% of all other agencies are on UHF. So there was a band problem to begin with.

As far as the agencies that border OKC in Oklahoma Co, that's true. However, OKC borders agencies in Grady, Canadian, Cleveland, McClain, and possibly in Pottawatomie, Lincoln, and Logan Counties. 95% of these agencies are on VHF.

It doesn't matter, though. The patches to each agency will continue to provide connectivity, and like freqscout said, the system will provide WAY more interoperability than the old VHF system.

Thanks again, freqscout...

 

[PJH]

Speaking from personal and work experience, here are some thoughts....

Most "town cops" (ie, not large cities) are well aware that they are being listened to. Its expected, its taught in the acdemy and on FTO.

Encyption is becoming more widespread due to the fact that on digital systems, it sounds no different than being in "the clear"

The use of scanners by common career criminals is up there. I cannot place a number on it, but within 1 year, we arrested 5 people in a town of 13,000 (38k during the day). Other departments in the area have had similar arrests. These people are not "just plain stupid people" and "people who can't figure them out".

Also as stated....most things are taped and logged. Either by radio, voice and/or video. Nevermind that your peers and supervisors are listening.

Either way, what you are hearing on the radio is only 1/10th of 1% of what is actually occuring. You are not going to hear over the radio the following:

-Mr. Big is going to be moving 10kilos of herion from 123 Main St to 999 1st Ave at 4:32am in a silver Yugo

What you will hear:

-Go to 1 Main St for a noise complaint
-Traffic stop Main St at 1st Ave
-I'll take a large black coffee with 2 sugars

At this stage of the game, technology is taking a big step. I wonder who news organizations and people found things out prior to the use of radio dispatching? That was only about what, 50 years or so ago?

There are no large radio user conspricrey's (sp) out there to cover things up. In fact, the radio would be, and still is, the worse tool to use for a perceived cover up.

Face it....your pissed that the city is spending money to enhance your safety, and that of its employee's in its service to YOU. Just because you can't hear them, doesn't mean they are all of the sudden sitting at the bagel shop.

As for the ham comments... I agree 110% with Bryan. Most can't even use a radio the proper way in an unstressed enviroment, nevermind in an emergency situation that is compatable with timely public safety needs. Not happening anytime soon.

Manual patches on equipment since the advent of the Centracom Series Motorola consoles, took about 5 whole seconds...even quicker if you had patches that were preconfigured. As stated above, with TRS systems...you can have linked patches at tips of your fingers. In fact, a large city that I was involved with had them setup for VHF-Lo for the statewide PD channel, VHF-Hi for regional fire, EMS, UHF for regional police, EMS and Fire. All the user had to do was to select the talkgroup. 24/7 they were there. Anyone coming into or leaving the city was seamless connected. This was on a 15 year old+ EDACS system.

 

[okccsi]

As I am the original poster here I would like to respond.

We haven't solved any band problems concerning communication with other city's agencies and as you mentioned cooperation between other PD's is crucial in fighting crime in our area. Don't we just use the mutual aid freqs as before, or am I confused? > know that internal agencies now can interact, but how often does this happen in OKC, >other than between fire and PD?

You ask how often does interaction happen between agencies. Did you know there are 10 cities within Oklahoma City. Listen to Hefner division air some night and ask yourself that question again. Top that off with the fact that Hefner actually goes into the city limits of Yukon/Mustang.

Most of the time you will hear a Warr Acres unit on Hefner air because he is using a radio that he/she purchased with his/her own money. This was the big issue over the OKC/OHP crash. The only ones that could communicate were ones that had purchased their own extra radio's.

So, you are saying that we have entrusted the media with information that is so sensitive that the general public can't be entrusted to hear, and then we are supposed to wait and see what info will actually be relayed to us by the media?!?
you did say media, right? Hello, media/confidential information? What's wrong with this picture?

It is not like that all. First, you mention "general public" several times. The general public does not know a single thing about the use of radio systems or even have the desire to listen in. I would be willing to bet that less than 5 percent of the "general public" actually listen to police frequencies actively. You can argue that if they wanted to then they should be able to...and they can. They, like you, just need to purchase a Pro Voice capable radio and have it programmed. When scanners were first becoming available to the "general public", the cost was not minimal at all. Not for something that was any good. Now there is a new system being put into place and guess what? The cost to listen is not minimal still. Factor in the cost of technology and inflation and you would probably be on par with the cost of a scanner 15 or 20 years ago to listen to what is currently being used.

 

[AE5C]

<snip> Top that off with the fact that Hefner actually goes into the city limits of Yukon/Mustang.<snip>

Actually the City of Mustang is in the Sante Fe Division.

 

[okccsi]

Actually the City of Mustang is in the Sante Fe Division.

Ah yes, I did leave that out didn't I. Thank you for the correction.

OKC CSI

 

[KD5WLX]

1. Yes, there are hams that don't know beyond the PTT.

2. Yes, there are hams that are 80 years old, or have had strokes, or walk with a cane.

3. Yes, there are hams that ARE professional RF engineers - I'm not one of them, but I know one. He built a linked UHF system that covers nearly half the state, for less than 6 figures. Why does the state (or a city) need millions to do it? Because they're doing it wrong, for the most part.

4. Yes, there are cops that know comms. There are also ones that only "care about 'can I talk to x'". And then there are hams that "wrote the book" on ICS/NIMS (I was part of the committee that adapted it from wildland firefighting to general fire service use back in the mid-80's).

5. There are trunked systems that work. There are also ones that DON'T (re: Glenpool).

6. There are systems where the operators/dispatchers know their stuff. There are also ones that DON'T - yesterday I heard dispatch instructing a FF on how to get his radio (unknown which) onto the right RMA talk group - and telling them wrong!

7. The decision to go trunked, or digital, or encrypted may not be to "stop the scanner listeners" in the minds of all the decision makers - but I KNOW that it was specifically mentioned in one meeting with one commercial sales rep to one Dept. Chief, along with several city officials. It was shot down (in that case) because it came out (later) that no one involved in the decision making process cared, but it WAS a "selling point" for the salesman. Remember, they (the commercial dealers/installers) ARE in it to make money.

8. How much of the stuff their putting in is going to have to be reworked, and how soon, because of Nextell Hell? How many $$$ of MY (taxpayer) money is going to be "re-spent" fixing a problem that the commercial dealers created? How much of that is NOT because they "fixed" an existing problem, but rather because they snowed some politician that their multi-million dollar "solution" would fix a problem the original user didn't know they had?

 

[N_Jay]

. . .
3. Yes, there are hams that ARE professional RF engineers - I'm not one of them, but I know one. He built a linked UHF system that covers nearly half the state, for less than 6 figures. Why does the state (or a city) need millions to do it? Because they're doing it wrong, for the most part.
. . . .

Anyone, Ham or not, engineer or not, fist responder or not; who thinks that a $100,000 amateur linked repeater system could replace a properly designed public safety communications system costing more is a fool!

Are there poorly designed systems out there? Sure, but is the minority.

There is a big difference in designing an amateur system of one communications path shared over several channels with link reliability somewhere just over 50%, and a multi-channel public safety system with network interconnect reliability of over 99.999% and mobile reliability of over 95%.

If you want all the details just as a ham/engineer/first responder who has designed BOTH!

 

[PJH]

3. Yes, there are hams that ARE professional RF engineers - I'm not one of them, but I know one. He built a linked UHF system that covers nearly half the state, for less than 6 figures. Why does the state (or a city) need millions to do it? Because they're doing it wrong, for the most part.

How are they doing it wrong? There is a lot more that is involved in a public safety systems then simply setting up a cheap radio with a repeater controller and a couple of antenna's.

Does this "linked" UHF have:

-MOSCAD interface for failures?
-UPS/Genset?
-Proper lightning protection?
-Funding to purchase land, shelter, engineering, tower and other related expenses?
-Reduncany?
-MW/T1/Leased lines?
-Comparators?
-etc, etc, etc?

4. Yes, there are cops that know comms. There are also ones that only "care about 'can I talk to x'". And then there are hams that "wrote the book" on ICS/NIMS (I was part of the committee that adapted it from wildland firefighting to general fire service use back in the mid-80's).

The inital ICS was though up due to wildfires in Califorina by California agencies back in the 1970's. There was also a similar ICS system that came into play on the east cost? I believe around the same time. I'd have to dig up my notes from class on that.

NIMS came about within the last couple of years out of 9/11 and the current times. I am not going to get into all that, as its not relevant to this. Ham's need to stick to the radio, not this stuff.

6. There are systems where the operators/dispatchers know their stuff. There are also ones that DON'T - yesterday I heard dispatch instructing a FF on how to get his radio (unknown which) onto the right RMA talk group - and telling them wrong!

If you don't know which, or how they operate, how do you know the instructions were wrong?

7. The decision to go trunked, or digital, or encrypted may not be to "stop the scanner listeners" in the minds of all the decision makers - but I KNOW that it was specifically mentioned in one meeting with one commercial sales rep to one Dept. Chief, along with several city officials. It was shot down (in that case) because it came out (later) that no one involved in the decision making process cared, but it WAS a "selling point" for the salesman. Remember, they (the commercial dealers/installers) ARE in it to make money.

And? PL search on a scanner is a selling point. Two tone paint availablity on a car is a selling point. I don't see how promoting options for your product is bad thing. This is what salesman in any field do. They promote their product, and is they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job.

8. How much of the stuff their putting in is going to have to be reworked, and how soon, because of Nextell Hell? How many $$$ of MY (taxpayer) money is going to be "re-spent" fixing a problem that the commercial dealers created? How much of that is NOT because they "fixed" an existing problem, but rather because they snowed some politician that their multi-million dollar "solution" would fix a problem the original user didn't know they had?

How did the commerical vendors create the nextel problem? Apparently you haven't been paying attention for the past couple of years. Just as a FYI, any frequency move is simple radio programming that can be acommplished rather quickly with the equipment they have. It just might be me, but I am pretty sure that they are well aware of this.

 

[N_Jay]

Maybe we need to explain it is "Computer Programmer" Terms.

Why does a professionally written custom program cost so much?

I know a bunch of high school kids who will bang out code for $10 an hour.

As soon as it runs their done! :roll:

What, you want documentation? Error trapping? Regression testing? Proper data structures?

Geeze, next thing you know it costs millions! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[K9JLR]

I'm not from OK, but I've had "considerable" dialogue with several LEO's (I am not employed in the Law Enforcement industry, although I've worked part time with a business that performs equipment installs) about going trunked/digital. The State of Illinois is getting ready to switch to a STARCOM 21 digital system here within the year.

1. The issue of criminals using scanners is a true problem and most LEO's acknowlege this threat. Even in rural areas, the number of criminals being caught with scanners in their possession has been rising. This poses a safety threat to LEO's and the last thing on their mind is whether or not some scanner listerner will be able to continue monitoring their communications. Officer safety overrides anything else! Yes, it sucks for the hobbyists, but you have to consider alternative viewpoints too. Don't buy it - read this: http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42401

2. As an amateur radio operator, I must admit with regret that most of what has been posted regarding hams as communicators is true. It is so bad up here in parts of IL that many public safety agencies refuse to work with them at all. SYKWARN groups are in similar trouble due to false reports and those that "overdo" it, blowing stop signs and speeding while activating 60 amber lights that illuminate the horizon over a 30 mile radius just to intercept the next dust devil. The NWS in Chicago came very close to ripping all of their ham equipment out of the office and completely cutting off ham operations within the NWS office due to ARES vs. RACES squabbling. I believe that the days of hams truly being essential to emergency COMMS (at least in the eyes of public safety officials) is nearing an end and this could spell the loss of radio spectrum. The commercial industry is aware of this and has been taking note for some time. It's time so shape up or ship out. The writing is on the wall and it has been for over a decade.