2011 IPART Inquiry into Pricing of GRN Services

[Scotty]

Nup, I've no idea the cost involved in either a P25 trunked site or a TETRA site - but I'd image both are expensive! But cost should not be the only consideration, especially if you are paying to install something that only does 1/4 of what you need it to do.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no single solution for every agency. I understand the Govt wants to clean up spectrum waste, and switching as many users to the GRN is one way to do this. But the GRN was designed for wide area (initially mobile) voice communications - good for emergency services, utilities, etc needing comms over a large area. The GRN is not necessarily the best choice for users who required local voice communications, especially when coupled with the need for other features.

[ivahri]

Scotty,

Tetra is significantly more expensive to implement than P25- the savings are made through the terminal equipment (handhelds etc) being cheaper but that is why this decision was so stupid. They have bugger all radios to balance the high cost of the base equipment...

For someone who has no idea of the cost to make the comment that "cost should not be the only consideration" it appears to me that you are just plain ol' anti-GRN and not interested in looking at the facts. How anyone can try to defend the waste of money on a system that is incompatible with the rest of the state, implemented at significant cost, and definitely not the only option- well I'm just glad that this kind of thing is being stomped on.

Your comments about the GRN demonstrate ignorance of what designing a good radio system- any radio system- is about. Reliability, Coverage & Capacity. If the GRN delivers all three then whether you are talking up the road or 500km matters none. What disgusts me is that there are many parts of NSW outside of the GRN footprint on which this money could (and should) have been spent, but instead it was squandered in Newcastle- smack bang in the middle of an area already well covered by the GRN. I don't think that, I know that.

Cheers,

Richard

[rustynswrail]

Scotty,

Tetra is significantly more expensive to implement than P25- the savings are made through the terminal equipment (handhelds etc) being cheaper but that is why this decision was so stupid. They have bugger all radios to balance the high cost of the base equipment... For someone who has no idea of the cost to make the comment that "cost should not be the only consideration" it appears to me that you are just plain ol' anti-GRN and not interested in looking at the facts. How anyone can try to defend the waste of money on a system that is incompatible with the rest of the state, implemented at significant cost, and definitely not the only option- well I'm just glad that this kind of thing is being stomped on. Your comments about the GRN demonstrate ignorance of what designing a good radio system- any radio system- is about. Reliability, Coverage & Capacity. If the GRN delivers all three then whether you are talking up the road or 500km matters none. What disgusts me is that there are many parts of NSW outside of the GRN footprint on which this money could (and should) have been spent, but instead it was squandered in Newcastle- smack bang in the middle of an area already well covered by the GRN. I don't think that, I know that. Cheers, Richard

Richard,

I am not a fan of TETRA, I am a fan of the GRN, I use it every day and it has demonstrated time and time again that its coverage is beyond expectation. And yes it is a pity that the GRN is NOT more state wide than it is. Longreach and I have discussed this a number of times.

But surely any system the size and type of the GRN, can only benefit from an assignment of simplex channels, thus freeing up the trunking network for its intended purpose, taskings etc. Otherwise why does the FRNSW use simplex fireground channels?

As far as I can see, safety critical comms, over a short distance, is better undertaken using simplex? This is particularly relevent during high pressure situations where the system is being stretched, or at a site that has minimal voice channels available?

Just my two cents ....

Russell

[ivahri]

Hi Russell,

Absolutely- there is nothing wrong with using simplex if that is all that is needed. The reason FRNSW & many other fire agencies use simplex for incident ground use is the old fashioned (but true) belief that the less technology is relied upon, the more reliable it will be. Even if there is capacity & coverage on the network it introduces a potential risk- that is one view but some others (like Melbourne MFB) have opted to use trunking for everything. Government has allowed for simplex spectrum to be retained, but just right now few of us know what these will be. It is all up in the air with the ACMA changes.

Cheers,


Richard

[system_tech]

Once upon a time, in a different life, I actually investigated the problems that Security staff at John Hunter were having.

I reported back to GCIO (as it was then) and nothing more was heard.

Amongst other things I found, when I walked aroundthe hospital with my issue GRN portable, I had less problems that what the Security people did, and I had a good look at their radios (MTS 2000). Out of 6 that I was shown, all 6 has excessive pin dimpling on the radio batteries, in other words the battreries had been removed / replaced many many times and the battery terminals degraded to the point they were intermittent. This was causing problems during tx and rx, whilst holding the radio (of course!) and the radio "jiggling" and the intermittent connection making/breaking causing the radio to reset.

This of course to the great unwashed meant that the GRN itself was faulty.

Oh well ........ why believe the truth when it was told to you .. the radios were faulty, not the GRN!

Their were certainly some internal building coverage issues but not as bad as made out. Just because the New Lambton site is just "up the road" doesn't mean that RF can easily penetrate metres of concrete & steel by brute force.


Overall I said that there were coverage issues, not as bad as reported, and please replace the batteries!

For what it is worth, to provide "in building" coverage via a discrete "underground site" or other means would alow all GRN users (especially Fire & Ambulance) to get coverage and would be no more, and probably less expensive than a Tetra site.

Obviously, Health is not a Team Player!

(by the way, one or two trunked talkgroups on one, or at worst two site does not generally cause network congestion, and in fact during a emergency trunking can be of asistance, say if the Security Supervisor or higher manager is off site, they can talk to Security from anywhere in GRN if there is a problem).

S_T

[centralcoastscanman]

I dont see how JHH would have had reception problems,, the Lambton site is approx 500m away and the only thing between the tx site and JHH are trees

I think JHH were suckered in by a good salesman who probly sold them a new phone system and said oh by the way you can get this you beauty integrated system where you can contact security from any phone regardless of their location...

they are idiots, put simply as your 100% correct they would have had unreal grn coverage

[centralcoastscanman]

Once upon a time, in a different life, I actually investigated the problems that Security staff at John Hunter were having.

I reported back to GCIO (as it was then) and nothing more was heard.

Amongst other things I found, when I walked aroundthe hospital with my issue GRN portable, I had less problems that what the Security people did, and I had a good look at their radios (MTS 2000). Out of 6 that I was shown, all 6 has excessive pin dimpling on the radio batteries, in other words the battreries had been removed / replaced many many times and the battery terminals degraded to the point they were intermittent. This was causing problems during tx and rx, whilst holding the radio (of course!) and the radio "jiggling" and the intermittent connection making/breaking causing the radio to reset.

This of course to the great unwashed meant that the GRN itself was faulty.

Oh well ........ why believe the truth when it was told to you .. the radios were faulty, not the GRN!

Their were certainly some internal building coverage issues but not as bad as made out. Just because the New Lambton site is just "up the road" doesn't mean that RF can easily penetrate metres of concrete & steel by brute force.

Overall I said that there were coverage issues, not as bad as reported, and please replace the batteries!

For what it is worth, to provide "in building" coverage via a discrete "underground site" or other means would alow all GRN users (especially Fire & Ambulance) to get coverage and would be no more, and probably less expensive than a Tetra site.

Obviously, Health is not a Team Player!

(by the way, one or two trunked talkgroups on one, or at worst two site does not generally cause network congestion, and in fact during a emergency trunking can be of asistance, say if the Security Supervisor or higher manager is off site, they can talk to Security from anywhere in GRN if there is a problem).

S_T

Mal,

Certain sections within Health are team players but there are alot of idiots that are incharge of finance that cannot comprehend the fact the grn is cheaper and provides better coverage that it must be true.
I spent 3 years working for NSCCAHS trying to convince them of the benefits of the grn, had all the people who would be using the system on board, had the gcio ready to help where they could. The $$ added up and we had a good business case but the woman incharge of finance refused to consider it because of some bad experiences she had sometime ago when she worked for sydney ferries.

[system_tech]

hehe . .Finance .. Sydney Ferries ...

once upon a time thety weren't so good at paying their bills

S_T

[Scotty]

For someone who has no idea of the cost to make the comment that "cost should not be the only consideration" it appears to me that you are just plain ol' anti-GRN and not interested in looking at the facts. How anyone can try to defend the waste of money on a system that is incompatible with the rest of the state, implemented at significant cost, and definitely not the only option- well I'm just glad that this kind of thing is being stomped on.

Hi Richard,

I'm certainly not anti-GRN, in fact I'm a massive fan! As a scanner user I think the GRN is fantastic. It makes scanning far simpler, and I do wish that more users would commit and move over so there is more to listen to. I've got no connection with the GRN or any current (or previous) user, nor do I work in a Govt department.

I am looking at the facts when I look at this particular user. If JHH only required a voice system then certainly upgrading the GRN in the hospital would have been the way to go. But they required more. Yes, a GRN site in the hospital would have benefited many agencies, but it would not have been as beneficial the hospital - and they were the ones forking out the money. And from a 'whole of life' approach there was likely little cost difference in implementing a single TETRA site than installing a GRN site (and playing ongoing fees) plus installing/upgrading their other required systems.

It's a difficult argument to make, cause as I said before I am a fan of the GRN. Should one Govt agency consider others when they upgrade? I guess they should. But what if that upgrade doesn't suit? I guess it will soon be irrelevent anyway, as you say the option will soon be removed.

[ivahri]

Absolutely they should Scotty! But you've jumped the gun... you've drawn conclusions that only Tetra met their needs yet you have no evidence to support that view. I've already demonstrated how other agencies do what they have done using far cheaper, and perfectly acceptable, technologies. So the RFS use paging as well as voice... so should RFS implement their own Tetra network? That would be stupid- but hey using your argument it would be OK. Afterall it is "their" money!

But no it isn't THEIR money... it is OUR money. And I really hate seeing it being wasted while critical needs go unresolved.

You sure don't sound like a GRN fan Scotty...

Cheers,


Richard