New York State Wireless Network (SWN) a slow failure...

[trauma74 111]

A slow- simmering issue threatens to erupt into a full boil

By FRED LeBRUN

First published: Sunday, November 18, 2007

Our beloved state may be on the precipice of wasting an awful lot of money, into the billions.

The hot question is this, though: Does the state care enough about stopping a boondoggle before the money is spent, or is the state content to wait, then just wring its hands when nothing can be done about it?

The Statewide Wireless Network is one of those slow simmering back-burner issues that the media don't usually get excited about until the pot boils over. Well, the lid is starting to lift.

A telecommunications company called M/A COM won the bid in 2005 to give New York a federally mandated single digital wireless radio system that all first responders and public safety types in the state could use to communicate. The contract calls for the system to cover 95 percent of the state, although how smart that is remains an argument for another column.

The original cost was $1 billion in New York taxpayer dollars over 20 years, but that's grown to $2.1 billion and the smart money says that's just the beginning.

So far, M/A COM has a spotty at best record of delivering on the contract. The company is already a year behind.

More importantly, the proprietary technology M/A COM is selling remains unreliable. Outside industry professionals are cautioning that the technology, even if reliable, does not meet federal compatibility standards so New York can talk to the rest of the country.

Still, that puts in question federal reimbursements, not to mention that one of the main points of this expensive exercise is that the system is supposed to be part of a national network.

On top of that, because M/A COM is crafting its own exclusive technology, any of the first responders or public safety types that opt to hook into it will have to buy equipment from M/A COM.

Now, maybe M/A COM is on the verge of a terrific breakthrough, but probably not. The only other state trying to use this same technology, Pennsylvania, was supposed to have its system done by 2001. It's still waiting. What started as a $200 million project there is approaching a half a billion.

The State Office of Technology insists the technology will be federally compliant, in spite of the doubters. But, frankly, the State Office of Technology appears to be too willing to forgive M/A COM's shortcomings, and is not a reliable judge of performance here.

M/A COM's technology got a huge setback last month in critical tests in western New York, in Erie County. Fox News even reported on it nationally. It worked in some places, sometimes, and not in others. Totally haphazard, which, given the gravity of its use, is total failure. Chautauqua County had better results, but Erie County suspended for 90 days any more tests until M/A COM shows improvement.

That test was the first in the state for M/A COM, but was also what is known as a "proof of concept." M/A COM won't get a dime from the state until the technology is proven to work, and this test was supposed to be it.

Except now the Office of Technology is waffling on that, and giving M/A COM more time to correct mistakes. It's a primrose path we're on here.

Because at the same time, Hanford Thomas, the office's Statewide Wireless Network project director, says the state will decide next month whether to go ahead with this network, and that Erie County's participation doesn't matter.

Whoa, State of New York. Special interests are being protected here, and it's time to wake up and take care of the taxpayer before we start doling out the millions.

Tom LaBelle, president of the New York State Firefighters Association, is cautiously suggesting a hard look at M/A COM and the contract are in order. "We have been very supportive of the concept of interoperability, and of a state-wide wireless. But at this point, there is simply no way of knowing whether M/A COM's system will work or not work. Too much depends on our communication system. When we need it, we really need it. There's no second chance."

Erie County Legislator Timothy Kennedy has asked Comptroller Tom DiNapoli for a full-scale audit of this boondoggle in the making. Kennedy has asked Assemblyman Richard Brodsky as chairman of the appropriate committee to hold public hearings on the contract and its implementation, and the technology.

On Thursday, U. S. Reps. Nina Lowey, Brian Higgins and Joseph Crowley asked the comptroller to appoint an independent third party to conduct the proof of concept test. An entity not associated with the Office of Technology.

The Comptroller's Office says that on Wednesday, oddly enough, it started an audit of the Erie County tests and roll-out, and whether terms and conditions have been met.

Assemblyman Brodsky added, "Clearly there are many, many unanswered questions about this contract, financial, legal, operational. We're going to get answers."

I can see the lid popping a little higher now.

Fred LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at flebrun@timesunion.com.

=

[snkbitn 2]

If the system does not work as promised, M/A COM does not get paid! Thats part of the contract with the state.

Also the new system is not going to be used for a paging system, so if you are in an area where fire pagers are having coverage problems, you need to build your own coverage you cannot utilize SWN.

Edited November 21, 2007 by snkbitn

[helicopper 1,050]

M/A COM if the system does not work as promised, does not get paid! Thats part of the contract with the state.

Yes, but for some reason that is completely foreign to me, despite such failures companies still seem to get our tax dollars and in return we get NOTHING!

In theory this is a great idea but why exactly do we need parts of the state with fewer people than deer or cows covered by this expensive system?

[snkbitn 2]

Yes, but for some reason that is completely foreign to me, despite such failures companies still seem to get our tax dollars and in return we get NOTHING!

In theory this is a great idea but why exactly do we need parts of the state with fewer people than deer or cows covered by this expensive system?

Twice a year the New York State 911 Coordinators Association meet, at every meeting there is a representative from the New York State office of Technology and things are progressing just very slow. He made it clear its all or nothing so we will see what happens.

The PDF files are too large to post here is there link for anyone who is interested.

Statewide Wireless Network "SWN"

Edited November 21, 2007 by snkbitn

[Texanm 1]

Please bear with me as i ask stupid questions, i am not up on Radio technology or the workings of state contracts

So i am to understand we (taxpayers, first responders) have already spent millions(?) on a statewide system that does not work, has been in the works for several years and is unable to even pass simple tests (even in other states), and will eventually cost billions?

Yet ham radio operators have system that can talk across the world on mobile, across the country on hand portables. Several years ago my Company gave us Nextels, and i used them to talk via radio to people in San Diego on a daily basis. Since then we went to regular Cell service. Even that is operational in more places than what i have seen so far.

$3000-$5000 for hand radios and mobiles? Is it possible justify that kind of cost to anyone when even the most expensive electronics sell for a few hundred (and probly only cost a few dollars to manufacture!) Do you really beleive there is justification to charge $500 for a pager?

Again, i apologise for the rant, maybe it does cost hundreds of dollars to manufacture some of these items. Please enlighten me.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Also the new system is not going to be used for a paging system, so if you are in an area where fire pagers are having coverage problems, you need to build your own coverage you cannot utilize SWN.

I'm not picking on you at all but with you having said that, what makes you think that his statement of if fire pagers don't work picking up the system (despite that the system will not be used for that use) that portable and mobile radios will? Simple theory is that if you can't receive a transmission, you can't transmit back to it. This system is being built in addition to local services radio systems which department curently use and is not meant to be heavily relied upon as thier primary radio system.

This is a common problem with building a system that utilizes trunking and also a ultra high frequency range. Plus too M/A COM has been having a lot of problems with their systems and also this new technology. Go to radioreference.com, strongsignals.net and other radio forum sites and read up on the problems. Having worked for CTSP as a dispatcher, we had several areas that have spotty coverage and is constantly being ugraded and repaired to fix the problems, that is the case with all radio systems.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Please bear with me as i ask stupid questions, i am not up on Radio technology or the workings of state contracts

So i am to understand we (taxpayers, first responders) have already spent millions(?) on a statewide system that does not work, has been in the works for several years and is unable to even pass simple tests (even in other states), and will eventually cost billions?

Yet ham radio operators have system that can talk across the world on mobile, across the country on hand portables......

HAM operations is totally differnet than a public radio system first off. HAM operator use LF (low frequency) HF (high Frequency), VHF and UHF repeaters, nothing like what M/A COM is installing. Here we are talking apples and oranges between amature and public service radio operations. When you construct a system such as the trunking systems many departments use, you are connecting multiple towers, using multiple frequecies and hooking all that into a computer system. This is about the best way of descriobing the system without actually getting into the whole technical aspect of design & propigation studies (how a radio signal travels through the air and is effected by terrain, landscape, sunspots, weather conditions, ect. ect. ect.)

The main problem with M/A COM is the technology they created and are trying to use. Its just not working and NYS has to begin looking else where for a new statewide interoprability system in my opinion.

[snkbitn 2]

Please bear with me as i ask stupid questions, i am not up on Radio technology or the workings of state contracts

So i am to understand we (taxpayers, first responders) have already spent millions(?) on a statewide system that does not work, has been in the works for several years and is unable to even pass simple tests (even in other states), and will eventually cost billions?

Yet ham radio operators have system that can talk across the world on mobile, across the country on hand portables. Several years ago my Company gave us Nextels, and i used them to talk via radio to people in San Diego on a daily basis. Since then we went to regular Cell service. Even that is operational in more places than what i have seen so far.

$3000-$5000 for hand radios and mobiles? Is it possible justify that kind of cost to anyone when even the most expensive electronics sell for a few hundred (and probly only cost a few dollars to manufacture!) Do you really beleive there is justification to charge $500 for a pager?

Again, i apologise for the rant, maybe it does cost hundreds of dollars to manufacture some of these items. Please enlighten me.

New York State has not spent anything into this contract. The system is in its building stage (its not turned on)

for testing purposes maybe but not live. They are building this system from scratch. They are also building from 2 different parts of the state at the same time. This is a statewide system and i believe they are looking for 90 percent coverage statewide. If that goal has not been reached the contractor has failed in its duties. This company again is NOT getting paid until the state approves.

[Texanm 1]

OK, im confused. I understand the proposed system is different, but the current system (in my county)is VHF and ham is VHF so they work different?

[snkbitn 2]

The main problem with M/A COM is the technology they created and are trying to use. Its just not working and NYS has to begin looking else where for a new statewide interoprability system in my opinion.

I can tell you SWN is not going to change the Office of Technology is dedicated to this program.

again this is just the beginning of this huge scale project. They have only built 2 sites at this time within the state.

Two teams will simultaneously build the SWN network.

One team will work from West to East, while the second team will work from South to North.

WEST – EAST

1. Primary Regional Build

2. Western Region

3. Finger Lakes South

4. Finger Lakes North

5. Northern Region

6. North Central Region

SOUTH – NORTH

1. New York City

2. Long Island

3. Hudson East

4. Hudson West

5. Capital Region

6. South Central Region

Edited November 21, 2007 by snkbitn

[snkbitn 2]

Yes, but for some reason that is completely foreign to me, despite such failures companies still seem to get our tax dollars and in return we get NOTHING!

In theory this is a great idea but why exactly do we need parts of the state with fewer people than deer or cows covered by this expensive system?

New York State Police

and its the first NYS Contract ever to have been written where is you fail you done get paid.

Its a large deal important on both ends of the table

[snkbitn 2]

I'm not picking on you at all but with you having said that, what makes you think that his statement of if fire pagers don't work picking up the system (despite that the system will not be used for that use) that portable and mobile radios will? Simple theory is that if you can't receive a transmission, you can't transmit back to it. This system is being built in addition to local services radio systems which department curently use and is not meant to be heavily relied upon as thier primary radio system.

This is a common problem with building a system that utilizes trunking and also a ultra high frequency range. Plus too M/A COM has been having a lot of problems with their systems and also this new technology. Go to radioreference.com, strongsignals.net and other radio forum sites and read up on the problems. Having worked for CTSP as a dispatcher, we had several areas that have spotty coverage and is constantly being ugraded and repaired to fix the problems, that is the case with all radio systems.

I just found it interesting that Fire Departments were heading up the complaint, when its really not going to help them anyway. It can be used for communications as a side channel. The office of technology has said in meetings if you have a problem with your radio communications now, repair or replace it on you own. They also added that it cannot be used for paging. Most rural depts in upstate ny were under the impression that this was the answer to the problems they are having and its not. It will be used for communications state wide, so yes it will cover inoperability with mutual aid companies. I think it will be used as a police channel more than anything but we will see.

[IzzyEng4 427]

OK, im confused. I understand the proposed system is different, but the current system (in my county)is VHF and ham is VHF so they work different?

Yes, though all two-way communication radios work intrinsically the same (transmit and receive) they are different. Amature, Public Safety and business radios all have different rules, specification and operations outlined by the FCC towards their construction and operations.

Though your county VHF public saftey and Amature VHF are basically the same (the radios themselves and not a system) and operate on thier respective band width allocations, they are regulated totally different.

Give me a PM and I'll try and explain how a police or fire radio system works.

[trauma74 111]

snkbitn,

It is appears that you are a NYCOMCO/MACOM fan. If you look around you will see that all of their systems are unreliable. Their system in PA has failed miserably. NYCOMCO's 800 EDACS system is one of the worst radio system that has even been used in this area.

The State has already sunk a lot of money into this project. While they say that MACOM will not get paid until the system is operational, there is money being poured into this project. There are tower sites that have been built already, plus the amount of man hours that the state employees have spent trying to get this system off of the ground. The way that they want this system to work and the actual way it is going to work are two VERY different things.

If NYS really wanted to build a good system, they should take a look at the Federal radio systems. The Feds use VHF & UHF digital trunked systems. If 700/800 band is so great, then why isnt the federal government looking to switch to this type of system. This system will not even be compatible with any of the radio systems in NYC.

Westchester, Rockland and Nassau are building out their own UHF systems. These 3 counties are pretty rich. They studied MACOMs systems and decided that they want nothing to do with it. It is sad that the State is going to waste our taxpayers money on something that will NEVER work correctly!

[snkbitn 2]

snkbitn,

It is appears that you are a NYCOMCO/MACOM fan. If you look around you will see that all of their systems are unreliable. Their system in PA has failed miserably. NYCOMCO's 800 EDACS system is one of the worst radio system that has even been used in this area.

The State has already sunk a lot of money into this project. While they say that MACOM will not get paid until the system is operational, there is money being poured into this project. There are tower sites that have been built already, plus the amount of man hours that the state employees have spent trying to get this system off of the ground. The way that they want this system to work and the actual way it is going to work are two VERY different things.

If NYS really wanted to build a good system, they should take a look at the Federal radio systems. The Feds use VHF & UHF digital trunked systems. If 700/800 band is so great, then why isnt the federal government looking to switch to this type of system. This system will not even be compatible with any of the radio systems in NYC.

Westchester, Rockland and Nassau are building out their own UHF systems. These 3 counties are pretty rich. They studied MACOMs systems and decided that they want nothing to do with it. It is sad that the State is going to waste our taxpayers money on something that will NEVER work correctly!

The City of Poughkeepsie uses NYCOMCO's 800 system. It does well for our department. As far as SWN

goes it is a long ways from being completed. It really has nothing to do with me, I was just passing along the information I learned at the 911 coodinators conference. I personally believe its going to be a State Police channel used statewide. This system is needed in upstate and western NY where radio coverage doesn't exist. I also know that they are already working on the NYC region as well. Go to there web site.

[NJMedic 96]

Can someone is a few sentences explain the SWN to me, at least its purpose. Here in NJ were are using the National Interoperablility Channels for large (and not so large) multi agency incidents. Is the SWN a system that is unique to New York State?. FWIW I have never really heard great things about MA/Comm. Perhaps Motorola has better PR but our county went with a MA/Comm digital 800mhz trunked system a couple of years ago for county operations, specifically in my case Emergency Management and Haz Mat response. The digital system was less then stellar. Multiple areas with no coverage dispite engineering reports that said they would be. We finally went over to a analog and it works alot better. Maybe apples and oranges but thats my 2 cents.

[JetPhoto 626]

The way it is supposed to work as I understand it is this new system is supposed to have channels for all fire EMS and police state wide to communicate to each other from one end of NY to the other and a common m/a channel if needed. This is also supposed to be a secure network so unless you have a few grand laying around you can forget about listening to it. (yes any radio system is hackable). But as in the case of southern NY it is a waste and will not be used to often (by at least fire and EMS). But like many have said it's still a pipe dream that we (against our wishes) are paying for.

Yes the EDACS channels used by the city and town of Poughkeepsie, Hyde Park, town of Fishkill and city of Beacon does work well but only because the towers are on Illinois Mt & Mt Beacon. It also works pretty good in Orange and Ulster who have additional towers. Altogether their are like 7 or 8 EDACS tower sites between the 4 counties.

But with any system you use, their are always problem areas.

[trauma74 111]

The SWN is a pipe dream. The State is going to be broken up 3 zones for communications. Part of the State will be on 700 band, another part of 800 band and the last part of a VHF digital trunked system. How can you have a true Statewide system when you have 3 different frequency bands. I know that the radios for the 700 and 800 band will be dual band radios so they will work on either system, but what about the VHF? The 700/800 radios will not be able to work on the VHF system and the VHF radios will not work on the 700/800 band system. Units in the boarder areas will have to have 2 mobile in their vehicles and who knows about the portable radios.

The State had these big plans of putting up radio towers all over the State, but they ran into resistance in many of the park land areas. So instead of putting up high elevation towers they are putting lower towers, but there will be more of them. Many of the repeaters will be on utility poles. How will these repeaters be protected against vandalism and terrorism? What happens when vehicle strikes a utility pole and knocks out radio services for the public safety units that are responding to that call?

The SWN will not have a failsoft feature, so when the system goes down, there will be no way for units to communicate. There are no plans for a backup of system of conventional non-trunked repeaters. There is no plan for non-repeated talk around channels. OSHA & NFPA prohibit the use of repeater systems on the fireground and for interior fire attack. The radio for the SWN will not be programmed for talkround channels, even if they were set up to use talkaround, it would be complicated to switch to that feature. The radios cannot scan trunked and non-trunked at the same time. Any agency wishing to utilize talkaround channels will be forced to get licensed for these frequencies which is a long process.

There will be limited vendors that will sell and program the radios for the SWM, so the M/ACOM dealers will be making all the money. Agencies who currently do their own radio programming will not be permitted to do it anymore. Competition will not exist because you need these special radios to work on the SWN. You cannot chose between M/ACOM, Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, Vertex etc like with conventional radio systems. M/ACOM will have the monopoly.

The cost of the radios for the SWN is going to be cost prohibitive. Even though other radio companies are supposedly going to be permitted to manufactor radios that will work on the SWN, they will still cost upwards of $5000 each. The average portable and mobile radios used by my agency are between $500-$700. Where will the money come from to purchase 50 portable and 6 mobile radios at $5000 each? How can you justify this cost to the taxpayers??

The technology planned for the SWN is untested and unproven. The closest system to this technology is being used in the State of PA and the system has failed miserably. Most of the agencies have reverted back to their old radio systems.

[helicopper 1,050]

I just found it interesting that Fire Departments were heading up the complaint, when its really not going to help them anyway. It can be used for communications as a side channel. The office of technology has said in meetings if you have a problem with your radio communications now, repair or replace it on you own. They also added that it cannot be used for paging. Most rural depts in upstate ny were under the impression that this was the answer to the problems they are having and its not. It will be used for communications state wide, so yes it will cover inoperability with mutual aid companies. I think it will be used as a police channel more than anything but we will see.

Thank you for confirming what I was lead to believe about this system. It is NOT a dispatch system, it is not a replacement for deficient systems in place already, and it is very likely not going to be a real benefit for day to day mutual aid unless agencies buy expensive hardware that is compatible with the system. So, we're sinking billions into a system that will give us what exactly? The ability for two units to talk while they're a hundred miles apart? So what?

The State has already sunk a lot of money into this project. While they say that MACOM will not get paid until the system is operational, there is money being poured into this project. There are tower sites that have been built already, plus the amount of man hours that the state employees have spent trying to get this system off of the ground. The way that they want this system to work and the actual way it is going to work are two VERY different things.

Thank you for highlighting my gripe!

The way it is supposed to work as I understand it is this new system is supposed to have channels for all fire EMS and police state wide to communicate to each other from one end of NY to the other and a common m/a channel if needed. This is also supposed to be a secure network so unless you have a few grand laying around you can forget about listening to it. (yes any radio system is hackable). But as in the case of southern NY it is a waste and will not be used to often (by at least fire and EMS). But like many have said it's still a pipe dream that we (against our wishes) are paying for.

Why, why, why? Interoperability sure, but this? Come on, really?

[SteveOFD 176]

This is also supposed to be a secure network so unless you have a few grand laying around you can forget about listening to it. (yes any radio system is hackable).

Even with a few grand lying around you still would not be able to listen. It is a proprietary technology that scanner manufacturer's would have to pay for (which MA/COM is not going to do).

Another reason I have heard that the State went with MA/COM is that the NYSP have had a long relationship with GE/Ericcson for their radios. This is the Company that has over the years morphed into MA/COM.

Edited November 23, 2007 by SteveOFD

[JetPhoto 626]

Saturday, December 15, 2007

$2 billion statewide radio emergency plan flunks first test

By Jay Gallagher

Journal Albany bureau

ALBANY — The first phase of the state’s planned $2.1 billion communications system for police, firefighters and other emergency responders has flunked its first test, sparking some concerns about the viability of the project.

“Are we concerned? Absolutely,” said state Homeland Security Secretary Michael Balboni. “This has to work.”

Balboni said a test this summer and fall of the system in Erie and Chautauqua counties disclosed some flaws in training to use the equipment as well as “some gaps” in the signal.

But others say that the failure of a network test in the first phase was to be expected, and there’s no reason to think it won’t proceed as planned.

“There were problems identified. We’re dealing with them,” Larry Toole, the manager of the project for the state Office for Technology, said at a recent meeting of the task force that is overseeing the plan.

The system in Erie and Cattaraugus counties in the extreme western part of the state is a trial run that will be used to decide whether to build the network across the rest of the state over the next few years. Another test is set for February with a decision on whether to proceed likely by late April, officials said.

The state last year signed a contract with M/A-Com to build a wireless-communication system that will allow emergency responders to talk to each other all over the state.

The plan calls for building as many as 1,000 relay stations around the state — as many as possible on existing towers and buildings, but also some on newly built towers.

The plan is an outgrowth of concerns first voiced by the State Police about 20 years ago that troopers patrolling remote parts of the state were sometimes out of radio contact with other emergency personnel.

And the issue of emergency workers not being able to talk to each other was driven home to many people on Sept. 11, 2001 when police and firefighters responding to the World Trade Center attacks couldn’t communicate with each other via radios.

The project is to be paid for in part with some of the proceeds from the $1.20-per-month surcharge the state imposes on all cell-phone bills, although a state Budget Division spokesman acknowledged that the source of all the money needed to build the system hasn’t been identified yet.

Also not yet clear is how much local governments will have to pay for new radios to hook into the system. While some existing equipment likely can be used, some departments will probably have to purchase new ones, officials said.

Under the terms of the contract, the M/A-COM doesn’t get any money until the Erie-Chautauqua phase of the project is accepted by the state.

“I’m not concerned (by the test failure) because of the way the procurement was set up,” said Assembly Governmental Operations Committee Chairwoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, Oneida County. “We are protected in that respect. If it doesn’t work, there will be a decision made it’s a no-go.”

A spokesman for M/A-COM, a Lowell, Mass.-based telecommunications company, referred requests for comment to the state Office for Technology.

Even if the M/A-COM project flops, it’s important for the state to keep money set aside for another wireless project, said an official of the state Association of Fire Chiefs.

“We’re concerned that the state continue to recognize the value of a statewide wireless system,” said chiefs’ association executive director Thomas LaBelle. “We want to make sure they don’t take away this huge amount of money and use it on something else” if the M/A-COM project is scrapped.

Besides the technical issues, officials said the key to making the project work is training for the emergency responders who will use it.

“I have tried to impress upon the (Office for Technology) staff for many years that had to have outreach that would really educate the first responders,” Destito said. “I think they’ve come a long way...The first responders really did not understand and some still don’t understand how important the statewide wireless network is when there is a true disaster.”

[Guest]

I use a ham repeater regularly that allows you to talk from Eastern LI to almost Canada. This system is going to be an almost complete failure.

[trauma74 111]

The State Office of Information Technology is never going to admit that this system is going to be a complete failure. They are going to keep "studying" and "testing" this system because they do not want to admit to the taxpayers of NY that they failed. They need to stop WASTING our money on this system and look down other avenues.

Motorola's bid for a SWN system was a lot higher than M/ACOM's because Motorola would have built a system that would actually work. The Office of Information Technology needs to look around the State and see that many Counties are building their own radio systems. These Counties are using Motorola systems on the UHF and VHF frequency bands. NONE of them are building 700mhz or 800mhz systems because these frequency bands are not suitable for the mountains, hills or inside buildings made of concrete and steel. Look at the nationwide radio systems that the Feds have. They have VHF & UHF systems. The State needs to open their eyes and stop wasting our money!

[IzzyEng4 427]

I use a ham repeater regularly that allows you to talk from Eastern LI to almost Canada. This system is going to be an almost complete failure.

But you can't compare armature radio where you are trying to DX another station and "closed systems" where you are trying to stay local.

The problem is everyone thinks that going to a trunking system where you have a set of frequencies (repeater ins and repeater outs) a computer controller and a XXX number of "groups" and users and making a great huge system. Of course its bound to fail because your already overloading the trunk system. Trunking basically cuts down the number of frequency pairs instead of using a number of "channels" (simplex or repeated). It just seems by what I have read it already overloaded and bound to give users the "bonk" tone when they try to transmit.

Radio system planners have to realize that re-inventing the wheel doesn;t have to happen.

That's the end of my rant.