On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:53:41 +0000, Brian wrote:

t's crap compared to the old wide area encrypted network I used. Everyone
could hear each other clearly and it didn't break up. It had the occasional
UHF fluttering effect if in a difficult area, but nothing mad. o2-AIRWAVE
was over budget and you should see the contract!
The data side of it doesn't work, so no sending in reports. The pictures do
not work, so no pictures of suspects, the fingerprint scanning doesn't work
and people are told not to use it to speak privately or for "phone" because
it slows the system down.

It was a great idea on paper, but put it in the hands of people with a
degree (worthless piece of paper) with NO practical experience or common
sense and it falls apart.

All o2-Airwave is good for is voice comms, but only in the areas contracted
and agreed will have coverage. In a way planning permission was obtained
almost by force to provide comms in some areas as the project was already
agreed to. So it was another way of getting unrelated base stations and
aerials onto the same sites.

In Merseyside and Cheshire the system is worse than normal radios.

Doesn't surprise me.

Though one error on your part. IME these systems are designed by
consultants, not technical people. Good technical people are well aware
that new tech. is , shall we say, unreliable. There is a phrase KISS, keep
it simple, stupid.

The latest one is these ID cards. Whatever the rights & wrongs, they are
making huge claims for the tech. which no-one I know of thinks will work !

Consultants and Bureaucrats like it because it's new snazzy and expensive,
and they can make flashy PR announcements.

As a cop equivalent ; one half expects our BiB to be given Palm Pilots or
something to write their notes up on, simply because it's a flashy gadget.
Simple things, like in this case a notebook, work.

concerned you are welcom to join



we have many people with interests in TETRA,many engineers and experts and
end users


your post although not all read as yet looks interesting i am sure our
members too would find it interesting

regards,paul
"Concerned Officer" wrote in message
ups.com...
How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.
An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I am posting this in a few choice UK newsgroups who have some interest
in the police radio system. If you take offence to this then I
apologise, but I think you will find what this post contains
interesting. At least I hope you do!

Let me be quite clear about a few things first of all. It is the
government's fault that police forces have had to switch to Airwave.
They have sold off frequencies we have been using for years with no
major problems. Do not blame your local police force for buying into
duff technology, they had little choice in the matter. And for those of
you who might read the items below and say 'purely teething problems',
then let me say this: We are something like the 38th Force to go live
with Airwave. o2 have had 37 previous installations to make their cock
ups and learn by them. Our Force has also been using Airwave (in a
testing capacity) for well over a year, and live for 6 months in some
areas. NONE of the technical problems raised time and time and time
again have been fixed during any of this.

Our communication equipment provider for control rooms also appears to
be totally inept when it comes to getting the data-display side of
things working. The 'last officer calling' function, whereby their
callsign and warrant number is displayed in the talk-group button on
the system is wiped out and replaced with either a blank space or
gibberish the moment the controller transmits. The 'subscriber' screen
- a utility on the control system that shows which officers are on a
particular talkgroup, also fails to function correctly. Those who are
off duty do not 'fall off' the display, meaning that there is around 50
pages of 'subscribers' on any talkgroup, most of them off duty. Very
useful! There are hundreds of other minor problems as well, but the
discussion of them is not the purpose of this post. It is merely to cut
through the propoganda being issued by the Government, O2 and probably
your local force about how peachy everything is. It isn't.


"What are the benefits of Airwave?"

o) Greatly improved coverage throughout force

This is a mixed bag. I have personally witnessed communications being
crystal clear in the depths of town x (read: middle of nowhere where
previously neither UHF or VHF could penetrate), yet o2 appears
completely unable to give us a clear signal outside Major University,
just yards from the major county motorway for which force Police,
along with all other major A roads in the county, have contracted for
100% coverage. Reception is also **** poor in major City centre,
major city centre, major city centre, major city centre and
major city centre. If by 'coverage' they mean the ability to transmit
something - anything! - then yes it has improved. I thought the point
of 'communication' was being able to be understood when trying to
transmit though.


o) voice clarity and an end to background noise

This partly goes hand in hand with the last entry. Voice is anything
but clear. When in the control room I have my headset volume up to 120%
on the touch-screen control equipment, and also have the built-in
headset volume control set to 3 (max), and I still struggle to hear
what anyone is saying the majority of the time. There appears to be a
total lack of bandwidth available for clear voice communications,
compounded by the effects of lack of coverage. It is essentially like
the early days of Internet telephones, were 2 people across the world
were attempting to communicate via 2400baud modems. It simply didn't
work. The noise cancelling was sold to us to also be a major advantage.
Why is it then that as soon as the officer turns on the sirens, I can't
hear a bloody thing they are saying? The moment they step into a busy
pub/club, all I can hear is music and background chatter. This feature
doesn't work either. And for the cynics, regarding the volume - no I am
not deaf. Switching back to UHF I car hear them fine.

o) secure encrypted comms that prevent scanning of police transmissions

Granted, the system is secure and encrypted. It also works quite fast.
Most of the time. However this does mean that while the criminals can't
listen in to transmissions, neither can anyone else. I know that in the
past I have assisted the police when off duty by phoning in seeing a
'suspicious male' hanging around or hiding somewhere based purely on
the description given out over the air by controllers a few moments
earlier. We as a police service have now automatically excluded this
unauthorised - but none the less appreciated - help. In an even more
indirect fashion listening to 'force' transmissions on VHF, I have
avoided accidents that have just happened, reducing the burden on the
service either trying to attend, or who end up dealing with the
resulting backlog of traffic. The same accident then appeared on my FM
car radio via Traffic Announce about 20 minutes later. The end result
was I also managed to get to work on time.


o) digital comms that will enable staff to communicate by radio by
phone or by text

I won't discuss the radio element (radio as we mostly know it, e.g.
broadcast or All Informed transmissions) as I think it covered well
above. However the telephone element is fine, except that officers can
only phone OUT from the handsets. For a maximum of 10 minutes. They
cannot receive incoming *telephone* calls from anywhere, except
Superintendants and control room staff. Useful. Text? Don't make me
laugh.. if you saw how complicated it was to actually COMMUNICATE via
text message, you wouldn't bother either. It isn't as simple as just
write and send. If you want to send it to someone in the control room
it is even worse. It is a system that will never be used, despite us
being in the 'text generation' due to its complexity and high failure
rate. Point to Point communications, e.g. using the radio as a radio,
but for a private call between only two individuals works well
providing there is no one transmitting on the main talkgroup. In a busy
division like say busy division, there is rarely any point during the
day where there isn't traffic on the main talkgroup, thereby rendering
this otherwise useful service, totally useless. It is made even worse
by controllers being told that they MUST NOT authorise talkthru on the
main talkgroup. Great... so how do we communicate then? Oh.. I know..
back to personal mobiles it is then.

o) access to local and national databases

Oh? Where? I do not have access to PNC, local intelligence, or any
other kind of database from my handset. My 'access to local and
national databases' is as it ever was. Ask comms, go back to the car
and use the MDT, or waste even more time and go back to the station.

o) introduction of emergency button that will improve officer safety

Yes.. when it works. Numerous times officers have pressed their
emergency button only to be told 'call failed', or 'no coverage' or on
pressing it for the required two seconds, find it doesn't fire because
someone in comms happens to be talking at the time (Yes comms staff
have a higher transmission priority than the emergency button!). How is
it then that this will improve officer safety? I can't even hit people
with my radio anymore if needs be, as the thing will shatter in to a
million pieces. In UHF/VHF days I could scream 'HELP!' even if someone
was talking. The controller would have a hard time trying to hear me
over the other person when I gave details, but at least it was
possible. With Airwave I just get 'BUSY' if I try and transmit, and end
up in a queueing system. But of course, this improves officer safety.
As a side note, when you are getting your head kicked in, have you any
idea how long 2 seconds is...? The button is also extremely hard to
push in and keep pushed in, all while trying to defend yourself.


o) Improved communications will mean officers can be deployed to calls
more speedily.

If anything I have described above can be seen as 'improved', then you
need to seek help immediately. There was never a problem deploying
officers the old way. The majority of the time VHF/UHF worked fine, or
as a last resort sending the job to the car MDT.

o) Staff will be able to access information regarding incidents, people
or vehicles directly through their Airwave radios.

Yes, we can retrieve some information regarding incidents, but it is
via text message, which we need to send first to request. It is a
convoluted process and by the time we have finished typing out the
request text message (which contains a lot of special characters like
#), we'll probably be there. I cannot access any information regarding
people or vehicles directly via by handset. I suspect when we are
finally able to it will be via the same method, e.g. text, and will be
quicker to call the PNC desk and ask. Text messages are also limited to
120 characters. Not very useful at all. The last two sentences
consisted of 73 characters...

o) Improved communications will mean less time in the police station
and more time on the streets.

Pure propoganda and an attempt to justify the 2.3 billion pound price
tag for the system. How improving communication will result in me
spending less time in the police station is a mystery. Is there a
feature of Airwave that automatically completes my paperwork for me?
Please tell me! I will gladly use it no matter how complex.

o) The ability to communicate directly with other forces and other
emergency services.

Neither my county's fire or ambulance services subscribe to airwave. I
can chat to neighbouring forces if I want to, but the only force I
personally border with the majority of the time is a big expanse of
water.. so no advantage there.

o) "Our colleagues in other forces are already catching more criminals
as a result of using Airwaves digital technology."

One word. Tripe! Airwave offers nothing in effect - due to the
technical problems - that MASC or similar technologies doesn't offer
already. Pure propoganda again.


Yes this is a humerous, but none-the-less serious look at the state of
play in todays police radio service. Don't flame me for my comments and
points of view. I'm sure if you speak to other officers of any number
of forces, you will get a similar view point.

If you got this far, congratulations and thanks for reading. The next
time someone in authority mentions airwave to you, perhaps you'll
remember this post and be able to raise a few points with them. It
should be an interesting conversation... that is, if they decide they
want to continue to talk to you at all...

Yours,

PC 5029 Concerned Officer.
Some Station,
Some Force,
Some Where.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 05:08:30 -0700, Concerned Officer wrote:

Be fair ! Why should it be different from any other government
project.

Of course, why should it be. But on the flip side of this, some
Government-sponsored systems work wonderfully. Radio and mobile
telephone technology is nothing new, and all airwave has done, really,
is throw encryption into the mix and make minor changes to the mobile
telephone model. What is so hard here?

You didn't really think it would work did you ???

Considering they spent £2.3bn (and counting!) on the system, I would
have hoped it to work slightly better than the quality I can get out of
two tin cans and a piece of string. Sad, really.

Well, why *doesn't* it work ? Why can't the police hang on to the mobile
networks ? I don't know, no-one does.

If all it is is encrypted mobile phone stuff (?) then you should be able
to do it with a reprogrammed cheapie handset.

There is no reason why it shouldn't work ; there isn't, (relative to say
moiles) that much traffic !

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:59:41 +0000, Brian wrote:

Cheshire already had encryption for years, it was the MASC system from
Marconi and it worked VERY well. It was a repeater system covering the
entire area so everyone was on "talkthrough". No silly pips all the time,
people could hear every other person. Last time I looked it was on
£2.9billion for Airwave.
Cheshire never suffered the same as Merseyside - they were never blocked out
on channels, even 22VHF that the patrols used as a chat channel between them
when they should have been monitoring CH2. No one could listen in either,
so why spend all that money on a system that is reinventing old ideas - was
not fully tested and doesn't work correctly.
Has your control room also mentioned that the radios have GPS built in, so
they can see EXACTLY where each patrol is on a map on the PC? That's why
pushing the emergency button shows them which patrol is calling and where
they are! So each PC is being watched.

If it works ... according to the OP (whom I presume is a copper), it
doesn't work. What use is an emergency system if you can't call for help.....

As another police airwave user I have to say it is an utterly ****e system.

Officer safety IS being compromised.

Airwave drops out completely on a regular basis in the control rooms, the
'hang time' to transmit is as long as EIGHT seconds sometimes - utterly
useless during a pursuit or something. The BUSY message is almost
permantently on and it is just NOT designed for busy areas on a Fri/Sat
night with lots of officers using it.

Do they expect us to f**ing run down the street texting on the damn thing to
get updates?

The sooner the Federation and Unison or whoever the lazy arse reps are, get
together and thrash it out with the Chief Constables - the sooner officers
can start seeing improvements and have confidence in the system.

"Concerned Officer" wrote in message
ups.com...
How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.
An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.

Greetings,

I'm a PC in the Met, and a few months ago went from Borough to the Transport
Operational Command Unit (TOCU), a Pan London unit of the Metropolitan
Police Service. The standard radio for the TOCU is the airwave system, and
I was issued a new Motorola handset accordingly. However, all BOCUs
(Borough Operation Command Units, the new jobspeak for divisions) operate on
the old Metradio system, which is 100% incompatible with Airwave. As such,
I currently have to carry 2 radios: an Airwave to talk to my pan-London TOCU
control room; and a Metradio to talk to local stations in order to respond
to divisional shouts, request cell space etc.

I have a number of issues with the new Airwave, beyond the weight issue of
carrying 2 radios, which I acknowledge is a consequence of the transitional
period:

1) The flimsy design. The Motorola actually rattles when it's shaken, and
is about as robust as an old mobile phone. A sergeant at my base recently
had his old Metradio run over by a car and the carrier (a long wheel base
Mercedes Sprinter van), and apart from scratches, it works as well as
before. Considering the back falls of my radio regularly, and the battery
unclips with a jolt (such as running!), I doubt the new radio will be
anything like as solid as the old system.

2) Attachment. The Airwave system used attaches to a clip on the fabric
loop of my outer clothing, and doesn't have a remote mike (in the old days
known as a PSM, public safety microphone). What this means is that there is
only a couple of grams of cotton thread between me and the loss of my radio.
Even the old Storno was securely clipped to my belt with a remote
microphone, and in a tussle I could rely on it staying on my belt, albeit
with the microphone dangling loose. With very little effort my new radio
could be sent into the yonder.

3) Microphone quality/position. The microphone of the airwave radio is
badly positioned. If pressing the PTT (Press To Talk Button) of the new
Airwave whilst it is attached to uniform, it is basically impossible not to
cover the speaker with your hand whilst talking. The PTT is at top right,
and the microphone is bottom left, and holding down effectively occludes the
microphone with your palm. It is almost impossible to talk into the radio
with it clipped to clothing, and most officers have to remove it and chat
into it like a mobile phone. This means that one swipe would send the radio
flying. OST (Officer Safety Training) dictates that radios should never be
held loose in the hand; with the new Airwave, it is the only way to talk.

4) Radiation. This is a subject I am talking on based on canteen gossip
rather then personal experience, and I apologise in advance for any
inaccuracies. Rumour has it that the handset releases far more radition
then a mobile phone, with the widely reported brain frying consequences.

Beyond the above problems, reception is poor, the microphone seems to pick
up background noise better then direct speech, and it is a wasted
oppurtunity. The trial was advertised as having the ability to send photo
messages with wanted pictures, but the handset issued is a low resolution
black and white LCD screen, with no such facility. All in all, the
technology that the Home Office is investing billions in seems outdated
before it is introduced.

I would like to think that the problems listed will be ironed out, but I
doubt it. The Met has not fully installed MDTs (Mobile Data Terminals) in
patrol vehicles, about 20 years after America (watch The Blues Brothers, the
SCHMARDS system they illustrated was fully operational in the mid 80's), and
in terms of directional guidance is several generations behind those of the
RSPCA (about 6 months ago I went in an RSPCA van for an arrest, and was
amazed how in advance of the Met they were). The new radio system seems to
be a throw back to early 90's mobile phone technology, and misses the chance
to bring police communications into the 21st century. I can only hope that
the system being trialled is rejected, and something approaching modern
technology is introduced.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

PC, TOCU - MPS.

"spencer bullen" wrote in message
. ..

"Concerned Officer" wrote in message
ups.com...
How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.
An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.

Greetings,

I'm a PC in the Met, and a few months ago went from Borough to the
Transport
Operational Command Unit (TOCU), a Pan London unit of the Metropolitan
Police Service. The standard radio for the TOCU is the airwave system,
and
I was issued a new Motorola handset accordingly. However, all BOCUs
(Borough Operation Command Units, the new jobspeak for divisions) operate
on
the old Metradio system, which is 100% incompatible with Airwave. As
such,
I currently have to carry 2 radios: an Airwave to talk to my pan-London
TOCU
control room; and a Metradio to talk to local stations in order to respond
to divisional shouts, request cell space etc.

I have a number of issues with the new Airwave, beyond the weight issue of
carrying 2 radios, which I acknowledge is a consequence of the
transitional
period:

1) The flimsy design. The Motorola actually rattles when it's shaken,
and
is about as robust as an old mobile phone. A sergeant at my base recently
had his old Metradio run over by a car and the carrier (a long wheel base
Mercedes Sprinter van), and apart from scratches, it works as well as
before. Considering the back falls of my radio regularly, and the battery
unclips with a jolt (such as running!), I doubt the new radio will be
anything like as solid as the old system.

2) Attachment. The Airwave system used attaches to a clip on the fabric
loop of my outer clothing, and doesn't have a remote mike (in the old days
known as a PSM, public safety microphone). What this means is that there
is
only a couple of grams of cotton thread between me and the loss of my
radio.
Even the old Storno was securely clipped to my belt with a remote
microphone, and in a tussle I could rely on it staying on my belt, albeit
with the microphone dangling loose. With very little effort my new radio
could be sent into the yonder.

3) Microphone quality/position. The microphone of the airwave radio is
badly positioned. If pressing the PTT (Press To Talk Button) of the new
Airwave whilst it is attached to uniform, it is basically impossible not
to
cover the speaker with your hand whilst talking. The PTT is at top right,
and the microphone is bottom left, and holding down effectively occludes
the
microphone with your palm. It is almost impossible to talk into the radio
with it clipped to clothing, and most officers have to remove it and chat
into it like a mobile phone. This means that one swipe would send the
radio
flying. OST (Officer Safety Training) dictates that radios should never
be
held loose in the hand; with the new Airwave, it is the only way to talk.

4) Radiation. This is a subject I am talking on based on canteen gossip
rather then personal experience, and I apologise in advance for any
inaccuracies. Rumour has it that the handset releases far more radition
then a mobile phone, with the widely reported brain frying consequences.

Beyond the above problems, reception is poor, the microphone seems to pick
up background noise better then direct speech, and it is a wasted
oppurtunity. The trial was advertised as having the ability to send photo
messages with wanted pictures, but the handset issued is a low resolution
black and white LCD screen, with no such facility. All in all, the
technology that the Home Office is investing billions in seems outdated
before it is introduced.

I would like to think that the problems listed will be ironed out, but I
doubt it. The Met has not fully installed MDTs (Mobile Data Terminals) in
patrol vehicles, about 20 years after America (watch The Blues Brothers,
the
SCHMARDS system they illustrated was fully operational in the mid 80's),
and
in terms of directional guidance is several generations behind those of
the
RSPCA (about 6 months ago I went in an RSPCA van for an arrest, and was
amazed how in advance of the Met they were). The new radio system seems
to
be a throw back to early 90's mobile phone technology, and misses the
chance
to bring police communications into the 21st century. I can only hope
that
the system being trialled is rejected, and something approaching modern
technology is introduced.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

PC, TOCU - MPS.

I'm in East Anglia and Airwaves is constantly down, crashing out of reach
etc. Due to being a rural area the shortage of masts causes a constant
switching of airwaves back to VK. There is no data facility as far as I am
aware and the only time Airwaves is actually used is in localised incident
scenarios.

Regards,

Malef.

"Brian" wrote in message
...

"the saint" wrote in message
...

"Concerned Officer" wrote in message
ups.com...
How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.
An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.
Neither my county's fire or ambulance services subscribe to
airwave. I
can chat to neighbouring forces if I want to, but the only
force I
personally border with the majority of the time is a big expanse
of
water.. so no advantage there.

o) "Our colleagues in other forces are already catching more
criminals
as a result of using Airwaves digital technology."

One word. Tripe! Airwave offers nothing in effect - due to the
technical problems - that MASC or similar technologies doesn't
offer
already. Pure propoganda again.


I work in the Ambulance service where we have been told TETRA is
on the
way. Professionally I know a number of emergency services staff at
all
levels and in a variety of services - police, fire, ambulance -
both
operational staff and Control Staff. Clearly experiences and
opinions are
swapped.

I am only too aware of the hype which has been generated by
Airwave and
the vastly inflated claims being made for it. There is a LOT of
dissatisfaction and much concern that it was and is being hastily
foisted
on us when no proper chance was given to other technologies.

One day there will hopefully be - at the very least - a National
Audit
Office enquiry into how Airwave came to be implemented/forced on
emergency
services. I feel sure that there will be serious questions to
answer.

In the meantime I hope the problems (for problems there certainly
are, but
being kept quiet) are just teething problems and that they can be
sorted.

Simes


Hello,

In Merseyside and Cheshire there is NO encryption on Airwave, the
fact it is
"digital" is thought to be enough to put people off having a go at
listening!
A lot of the Motorola handsets had difficulty with the encryption.


Sorry, the air interface IS encrypted, just as mobile phones are, but
from BTS to control is not.

Sorry, the air interface IS encrypted, just as mobile phones are, but
from BTS to control is not.

Which class air interface encryption are they using then? No key,
static or dynamic ?

for peter who had a go at me and then changed the adress so i could not
reply to him

bottom posting **** **** off and mind your own business

just having a go at me,who for once rarely did not snip,i usually do but iso
what if sometimes one does not,looking at this thread i keep seeing most who
also have not snipped either

why is it such sad ****s like you exist,we talk about something seriious and
lame brains like you have to get in

top posting means i dont have to scrawl down to the bottom to read an answer
which icant beleive so many still do

regards,Paul