UK Police TETRA network - "Don't transmit, text instead ''

[cartman]

Found this via radioreference website

UK Police TETRA network - "Don't transmit, text instead .... it's cheaper''

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... adios.html

This is the downside of the severe budget cuts that the British Government have implemented


Grant

PS The network is now owned by a subsidary of the same group that owns Sydney Airport .... they charge what they can get away with

"Airwave Solutions is owned by Australian investment bank Macquarie, which bought it from mobile phone firm O2 three years ago"

[Bigfella237]

£2 a second!

And I thought GRN access was expensive! Makes us lucky that our system wasn't contracted out to such a company?

Andrew

[system_tech]

Hah! there is no air time billing on GRN! Only a flat monthly fee per radio. Now, finally people will see it ain't so bad after all.

More pertinent to the subject, I fail to see how a government could use a commercial supplier, who obviously can do whatever they want.

Ironically, the London Metropolitan Police (same mob portrayed on "The Bill") used to have their own SmartZone system.

S T

[Longreach]

just think boys and girls, the so called billionaires factory wants Redflex too, another thing on the nose.
if theres 10 bucks to be made Macquarie wants or owns it.
I dont like the fact though that a private company basically controls a police radio network thru ownership, it cant be a good thing?
cheers
Matt

[ivahri]

Have any of you looked at the sheer size of this network? The capital cost of this network was in the BILLIONS of pounds... so how do you think that investment is to be recouped? And ST... imagine how many techs are engaged in managing a network of this size? So how are they going to be paid? Have those agencies crying about the recurrent cost costed in the savings from the in-house techs they most likely laid off as they no longer have systems of their own to support? It is always the same old story- people want something (read: everything) for nothing. If they don't want to pay to build & run it, then they have to pay someone like Macquarie to do it. Macquarie are just shrewd investors that know when there is a buck to made. People can't have it both ways. Alternately they need to make the tough decision that maybe we can't really afford it, and simple PMR (P25 or analogue) is more within the budget. I love people & governments with Rolls Royce tastes & Hyundai budgets....

Cheers,

Richard

[rustynswrail]

Have any of you looked at the sheer size of this network? The capital cost of this network was in the BILLIONS of pounds... so how do you think that investment is to be recouped? And ST... imagine how many techs are engaged in managing a network of this size? So how are they going to be paid? Have those agencies crying about the recurrent cost costed in the savings from the in-house techs they most likely laid off as they no longer have systems of their own to support? It is always the same old story- people want something (read: everything) for nothing. If they don't want to pay to build & run it, then they have to pay someone like Macquarie to do it. Macquarie are just shrewd investors that know when there is a buck to made. People can't have it both ways. Alternately they need to make the tough decision that maybe we can't really afford it, and simple PMR (P25 or analogue) is more within the budget. I love people & governments with Rolls Royce tastes & Hyundai budgets....
Cheers, Richard

Richard,

I think this is part of the problem. Instead of governments, irrespective of their political bent, biting the bullet by funding, installing and operating these systems, they seem to think that better value can be found by outsourcing. When things go wrong, they can blame someone else - ergo the Victorian rail system, the Victorian electrical grid and dare I mention the fiasco with Victorian emergency services radio BEST operations during the 90's. The NSW toll roads is another example of this.

If it is owned by the government, then the bottom line should be service, not the bottom line. Unfortunately the concept today, and NSW is no different, is making a profit, or divesting itself of the basics. We need political reform, abolish the states, have two levels of government, two levels of courts, one set of laws across the country and a true 'whole of government' radio system.

No doubt some will disagree, but last time I looked it was still a free country, plus GST of course.

R

[cartman]

The problems of outsourcing are already present in NSW eg electricity, motorways and possibly in the future supplying water to the masses

I hear the investment banks would dearly love to get control of that .... "you can have as much water as you can pay for"

Which explains the comment former investment banker Malcolm Turnbull made some years ago
http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200611 ... m?victoria

Grant

[system_tech]

Hi Richard,

I wasn't suggesting "it should be for nothing"!

More likely I would comment that if they can't used it as designed, it is now not fit for purpose. No emergency / law enforcement radio network or any kind of "system" for that matter should be run on a "don't use it, its too expensive" basis!

Mind you, quite a few NSW Govt Agencies think the same about GRN! Realistically though the running costs of the GRN are not "that bad", some just think they are.

As for in house stuff, perhaps the NSW Govt al la GCIO should do comms for all agencies, PMR. GRN or whatever. Redundancies coming to in-house techs in a Fire Agency near you? Later to be completely outsourced to um er, I wonder who? Oh what about Motorola? Not likely you say? A very large foot is already in the door and could without much effort move to the next room.

I certainly agree about Rolls Royce Specifications and Hyundi Budgets.

S_T

Have any of you looked at the sheer size of this network? The capital cost of this network was in the BILLIONS of pounds... so how do you think that investment is to be recouped? And ST... imagine how many techs are engaged in managing a network of this size? So how are they going to be paid? Have those agencies crying about the recurrent cost costed in the savings from the in-house techs they most likely laid off as they no longer have systems of their own to support? It is always the same old story- people want something (read: everything) for nothing. If they don't want to pay to build & run it, then they have to pay someone like Macquarie to do it. Macquarie are just shrewd investors that know when there is a buck to made. People can't have it both ways. Alternately they need to make the tough decision that maybe we can't really afford it, and simple PMR (P25 or analogue) is more within the budget. I love people & governments with Rolls Royce tastes & Hyundai budgets....

Cheers,

Richard

[ivahri]

ST,

Extremely unlikely on the redundancies... we have 2 RF maintenance techs & 1 RF systems/ planning person in total, a lot less than Police, Ambos or RFS. However these could be absorbed in to a more centralised, radio infrastructure agency if it ever came about.

I think you & I have been around long enough to see how agencies can be deceived in to believing that something will deliver what it can't. In the early days of the GRN I witnessed someone, now departed, sell its capabilities more aggressively than a Parramatta Rd used car salesman. Shortsighted, as he just generated a whole lot of people that will never trust a GRN type of network again. Maybe that has been going on in the UK? I don't know, but I suspect that kind of thing goes on everywhere. But at the same time some agencies have a long history of being disinterested in spending money on radio (State Forests come to mind) and I think government needs to force agencies to face the real cost of doing business- that means making them pay for a standard of communications that is appropriate. "Appropriate" is hard to define because what I expect for an emergency service is very different to many councils or State Forests. If you build it to emergency services standard then it is going to cost more- and these smaller agencies need to accept that.

So is the Airwave system "unfit for purpose"? Who knows, but I doubt that there ever will be a system designed that achieves 100% user satisfaction. That just wouldn't be natural!

Cheers,

Richard

[centralcoastscanman]

Speaking of State Forrests comms, they have a tender on the nsw government website that they are looking at overhauling their comms...