GRN interference problem.

[system_tech]

I am quite happy to say that the DR NOCC has never worked and will happily provide a Stat Dec or Affadavit to confirm -- that how strong I am of my opinion. I have other folk who could testify the same.

Now if you want to split hairs and tell me that the Motorola gear at the DR NOCC worked .. fine. But the crunch .. there has never been a switch over to test it, and there is enough gear missing at the moment to say it could not work now. Quite frankly it was not in a condition to switch over to in the first place.


If it worked, the DR NOCC would be of immense value. But if it has never worked, and the Agencies have been misled, which it would appear they have feeling better for no reason, and the money spent is quite a lot for nothing.

And yes as you say Richard there a quite a few other factors. Which I didn't allude too. My statement would truly be obvious if I did, but for example .. your comms consoles at your agency ... do they have an alternate link to the DR NOCC so they would work in the event of a switch over .. unless they have materialised in the last 2 months .. no.

Richard .. PM me and will explain more.

ST

[ivahri]

System Tech,

I'm horrified by what you have written. I totally agree that the fact the DR was not tested is verging on criminal, but whose fault was that? I'm not normally a blame chaser but heck the previous network manager was obligated to set up the systems needed to test the network- the whole network. In the past few years I never once saw any report that alerted anyone (outside of the network "owner") to the fact that this wasn't functional.

Yes the ability for the consoles to only be connected to one system at a time is a problem, and one that we only became aware of about 2 months ago. Fortunately my agency designed its centres to "battleship" standards with multiple systems of redundancy. That means we have a full set of RF controls that can be switched over to the P25 network during the migration phase. That isn't our preferred way to go at all & we have Moto visiting us tomorrow to discuss this & other issues. But we do have a workaround if we need it.

Thanks for your info, much appreciated.

Cheers,


Richard

[system_tech]

"I'm not normally a blame chaser but heck the previous network manager was obligated to set up the systems needed to test the network- the whole network."

hahaha you can't test anything that isn't completed! And double hahahaha cheap shot at directing attention to the previous network manager (PNM), who had no control over the build of the place.

The DR NOCC build was specified and project managed by GCIO / Commerce. The PNM built part of it, under direction. However, GCIO directly engaged the various contractors, and thus GCIO are responsible. The thing could have never worked, and a main cause was a lack of SOUL Links. The contract for the links was owned, specified and managed by GCIO. In fact, the PNM was barred from commenting on, and seeing documentation for the links. It is a matter of record that all representatives of the PNM had to leave the meeting room when Soul Links were discussed among GCIO and Agency reps.

So get another tree to bark up, you have no idea of what GCIO hid from the agencies, and what they went alone on, even building a few sites without involving the network manager. And how GCIO excluded the PNM from quite a lot of information.

And my almost last comment .. the PNM made many reccommendations to GCIO, quite a few of which were ignored .. ones that were implemented were often dumbed down. Possibly something to do with the lack of money. But don't worry, copies of the recommendations have been kept, and of the subsequent replies by GCIO.

And something to choke on .. the funding for the DR NOCC was incorrectly closed off by GCIO before the site was completed .. so .. the PNM had to cobble the rest of it together. GCIO did not install a generator (or at least up to 31/3/09) although it had a battery UPS, it was deemed a risk to leave the Zone Controllers, Database servers etc turned on, as there was no guarantee that someone would get to the site and do a "soft" disable before the batteries expired (if the mains failed), so that the control equipment was ALWAYS switched off .. once again another reason why the DR NOCC would never work. An abrupt power loss to the Unix servers would be disasterous! Cure .. leave it switched off!!! But even that is not such a problem, as the rest of the infrastructure was not complete, so not having a Generator was the least of worries.

As a customer of GCIO, did YOUR Agency verify that DR NOCC worked, did it ever participate on a switch over exercise?

Read carefully ... the "Previous Network Manager" could only ever deal with what the owner, ie GCIO, provided, and were allowed to deal with.

[ivahri]

Sorry, now I think you are trying to wage what should be a commercial argument, and for which neither you nor I have authority to speak, in the public domain. Don't think you are going to draw me in, I appreciate being employed too much. You can be sure I will have something to say in the appropriate forums.

I've said all I'm going to say & said what my personal views are but beyond that I'm going to stick to what I know I'm good at, and that is the technical matters. After all these years I'm long past engaging in p*ssing wars with anyone.

Regards,


Richard

[system_tech]

OK, sounds reasonable to me, however, it doesn't change the facts that:

* The DR NOCC never worked.

* If anyone in authority believes it did, they have been lied to.

* And GCIO, is/was fully responsible for the DR NOCC implementation.

There is no commercial interest here .. just the truth.

PS it was you pointing fingers at the "previous network manager"

Anyway now I have replied I too will not post any further on this.