Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Is Project 25 right for us?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:44:44 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: Random Noise <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Is Project 25 right for us?

Eric, 

We are in similar situations.  I have a COPS grant I
am using to replace our system.  We also will have 4
or 5 sites, 99% sure we're going P25 but will remain
conventional.  We will have encryption capability and
use it on an as needed basis.  You are blessed to be
on VHF, we will have to remain on UHF due to frequency
availability.

Thor Wiegman
Communications Technician
Bonner County (ID)

--- Eric Kozowski <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Our county just received a federal grant to replace
> our public safety
> radio system.  We are a large, rural county (7000
> pop., 3700 sq mi).
> 
> Is a Project 25 compliant system something that we
> should be looking
> at as a replacement to our existing system?  For
> sure, we want a
> voting repeater system (5 sites), encryption and
> possibly trunking.
> We want to stay with VHF high band due to the
> terrain and distances
> involved.
> 
> --
> Eric Kozowski
> Deputy Sheriff
> Wallowa County (OR) Sheriff's Office 
> 
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/nHYuCC/ca0FAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:21:02 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: "Sanders, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE:  Is Project 25 right for us?

 We are surrounded by NM and OK here in the Texas panhandle and we are all on
VHF.  Interoperability has not been much of a problem except from a political
standpoint from time to time.  Amarillo uses two system each for Police and Fire
that are single site transmit with 10 voter receiver sites in each system.  We
have 90% portable coverage into most buildings down to the first basement
level. The Hospitals of course are another thing because they want to be RF free
inside.  Cellphones even do not work in some areas in them. We are getting funding
from Homeland Security avenues and they are requiring that we buy Project 25
compliant equipment.  Looks like we will do so but will not use any of them in the
digital mode at this time.  Maybe later this will become necessary but for now we
will stay analog.Some of the Federal Agencies (FBI, DEA, BLM, Border Patrol, etc.)
are all VHF in the area and they are being forced to go P25 digital on their
systems.  All of the State Agencies are VHF except for Texas Dept. of Highways and
they are lowband VHF.  They all plan to stay VHF and are buying P25 radios.
Federal and State Agencies usually switch to our channels for interoperability
purposes.I guess the bottom line is we will go with the analog format for now with
a plan to incorporate  P25 as we proceed with narrowbanding to 12.5 Khz. and
eventually to 6.25 Khz.  Going P25 means all of the spectratac receivers will have
to be upgraded to P25 and narrow band.If I were changing out these systems all at
once, I would consider using analog for now with a plan for migration  to narrow
band and P25 as necessary.  Because P25 equipment is required does not mean that
it has to be used if it does not provide the best system for the user.My main
concern is that in a few years there may be a better format, better equipment,
more flexible equipment, newer and better technology and who knows what
else.Whatever is done, keep it simple for the user to operate the system and the
equipment.My $.02Thanks,Bob Sanders
Communications Supervisor
City of Amarillo
[email-masked]
806-378-6851
806-378-6895 FAX

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:09:40 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: "Cerqua, David" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE:  Is Project 25 right for us?

Bob – I have been out of town and missed your original message. – P-25 is not a
requirement for Texas Grants. – Texas referenced ODP grant wording, which refers
to P-25 compatibility.Contact Information at the State would be Bob Pletcher with
DPS @ 512-424-5307 or Dr. David Boyd, Director of Science and Technology, DOJ/DHS

We have contacted Dr. David Boyd, and he has indicated that Interoperability
Grants will fund non-P25 equipment.While grant applications should show a growth
plan to accommodate P-25 in future, it should be done without sacrificing backward
compatibility to existing equipment, (the goal is not to replace everyone’s
radios) but the most important issues (to receive grant approval) are the ability
to demonstrate:

1. Achieves interoperability between groups within/between an organization.

2. Achieves interoperability across jurisdictions.

3. Achieve voice interoperability.

Since the goal of the funding is interoperability and P-25 is frequency band
specific it offers you no (or little) benefit over what you do today by
programming other agencies VHF frequencies in your radios. The key or questions is
how to interoperate with agencies in other frequency bands or using other
equipment.These solutions are more network-based, rather than radio-based, and
provide true interoperability regardless of frequency band, manufacturer or
protocol and are approved for funding under both ODP/DOJ/DHS and State of Texas
grants.

David Cerqua

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanders, Bob [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:01 AM
Subject: RE:  Is Project 25 right for us?

The P25 requirement for us was mandated from the State of Texas to the entities
they were distributing the grant funds to.

Bob Sanders