On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:43:47 -0700, Concerned Officer wrote:

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.

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

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

Paul Robson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:43:47 -0700, Concerned Officer wrote:

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.

snip

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 =A32.3bn (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.

Cheers,

PC A.N. Other.

"Concerned Officer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Paul Robson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:43:47 -0700, Concerned Officer wrote:

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.

snip

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.

Cheers,

PC A.N. Other.

Hello,

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.

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.....

Brian wrote:
snip
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.

Indeed, the new Nokia GPS-enabled terminals
(http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,62313,00.html) are slowly replacing our
'old' 880's but they have yet to fix in the system that will show us on
the map. Assuming the emergency button works, it will merely display
the co-ordinates on the screen and the controller will then need to
transpose those details onto the mapping system to bring up a
location... yet more room for errors to creep in. But as I say, that's
assuming the button works at all.

Adam.

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 !

"Paul Robson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 05:08:30 -0700, Concerned Officer wrote:
snip
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.

It was a political decision after Tony was deeply embarrassed by his
police security talking about their location when he was out with Dubbya,
completely compromising Dubbyas accompanying security.
(the US secret service have used encoded radios since the 1960s)

When Tony found out all and sundry were listening in to his security,
he ordered a new secure system be implemented ASAP, cost no object.

O2 rubbed their hands with glee, and muttered the infamous word "Tetra"

Steve Terry

In article , Steve Terry
writes

"Paul Robson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 05:08:30 -0700, Concerned Officer wrote:
snip
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.

It was a political decision after Tony was deeply embarrassed by his
police security talking about their location when he was out with Dubbya,
completely compromising Dubbyas accompanying security.
(the US secret service have used encoded radios since the 1960s)

When Tony found out all and sundry were listening in to his security,
he ordered a new secure system be implemented ASAP, cost no object.

O2 rubbed their hands with glee, and muttered the infamous word "Tetra"

Steve Terry



Where an analogue trunked system would do about all thats needed and is
proven and costs less, but hey!, its got to be digital like that pox
known as DAB which sounds worse than FM;((....
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

proven and costs less, but hey!, its got to be digital like that pox
known as DAB which sounds worse than FM;((....

Then you or the broadcaster does something wrong - DAB ist just great
here in germany.



regards - Ralph

--

Want to get in touch? http://www.radio-link.net/whereisralph.txt

"Ralph A. Schmid, DK5RAS" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:

proven and costs less, but hey!, its got to be digital like that
pox
known as DAB which sounds worse than FM;((....

Then you or the broadcaster does something wrong - DAB ist just
great
here in germany.



regards - Ralph

--

Want to get in touch? http://www.radio-link.net/whereisralph.txt

There is a simple reason for it. I believe in Germany the data rate
used is 256Kb/s? In the UK the regulatory body, Ofcom (or it may have
been its predecessor the Radiocommunications Agency) issued an advice
to broadcasters that the lowest acceptable data rate should be
128Kb/s, so what happened? Correct, they all moved to 128Kb/s (or less
in mono.) Before this many were at 160Kb and several were at 192Kb.
Now there is only one, BBC R3 (the classical station) that transmits
at 192Kb (or 160Kb during busy periods) and Classic FM (the commercial
classical station) that uses 160Kb at all times.

There are rumours around that Ofcom are to change their guidance to
'not lower than 112Kb/s' sometime soon. Heaven helps us if they do! In
the UK it's all about quantity - quality doesn't even get a look in.


--
Woody

harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com