Airwave - Cutting Through the Propoganda

4/24/05

How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.

An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am posting this in a few choice UK newsgroups who have some interest

in the police radio system. If you take offence to this then I

apologise, but I think you will find what this post contains

interesting. At least I hope you do!

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.

Our communication equipment provider for control rooms also appears to

be totally inept when it comes to getting the data-display side of

things working. The 'last officer calling' function, whereby their

callsign and warrant number is displayed in the talk-group button on

the system is wiped out and replaced with either a blank space or

gibberish the moment the controller transmits. The 'subscriber' screen

- a utility on the control system that shows which officers are on a

particular talkgroup, also fails to function correctly. Those who are

off duty do not 'fall off' the display, meaning that there is around 50

pages of 'subscribers' on any talkgroup, most of them off duty. Very

useful! There are hundreds of other minor problems as well, but the

discussion of them is not the purpose of this post. It is merely to cut

through the propaganda being issued by the Government, O2 and probably

your local force about how peachy everything is. It isn't.

"What are the benefits of Airwave?"

o) Greatly improved coverage throughout <force>

This is a mixed bag. I have personally witnessed communications being

crystal clear in the depths of town x (read: middle of nowhere where

previously neither UHF or VHF could penetrate), yet o2 appears

completely unable to give us a clear signal outside <Major University>,

just yards from the <major county motorway> for which <force> Police,

along with all other major A roads in the county, have contracted for

100% coverage. Reception is also piss poor in <major> City centre,

<major> city centre, <major> city centre, <major> city centre and

<major> city centre. If by 'coverage' they mean the ability to transmit

something - anything! - then yes it has improved. I thought the point

of 'communication' was being able to be understood when trying to

transmit though.

o) voice clarity and an end to background noise

This partly goes hand in hand with the last entry. Voice is anything

but clear. When in the control room I have my headset volume up to 120%

on the touch-screen control equipment, and also have the built-in

headset volume control set to 3 (max), and I still struggle to hear

what anyone is saying the majority of the time. There appears to be a

total lack of bandwidth available for clear voice communications,

compounded by the effects of lack of coverage. It is essentially like

the early days of Internet telephones, were 2 people across the world

were attempting to communicate via 2400baud modems. It simply didn't

work. The noise cancelling was sold to us to also be a major advantage.

Why is it then that as soon as the officer turns on the sirens, I can't

hear a bloody thing they are saying? The moment they step into a busy

pub/club, all I can hear is music and background chatter. This feature

doesn't work either. And for the cynics, regarding the volume - no I am

not deaf. Switching back to UHF I car hear them fine.

o) secure encrypted comms that prevent scanning of police transmissions

Granted, the system is secure and encrypted. It also works quite fast.

Most of the time. However this does mean that while the criminals can't

listen in to transmissions, neither can anyone else. I know that in the

past I have assisted the police when off duty by phoning in seeing a

'suspicious male' hanging around or hiding somewhere based purely on

the description given out over the air by controllers a few moments

earlier. We as a police service have now automatically excluded this

unauthorised - but none the less appreciated - help. In an even more

indirect fashion listening to 'force' transmissions on VHF, I have

avoided accidents that have just happened, reducing the burden on the

service either trying to attend, or who end up dealing with the

resulting backlog of traffic. The same accident then appeared on my FM

car radio via Traffic Announce about 20 minutes later. The end result

was I also managed to get to work on time.

o) digital comms that will enable staff to communicate by radio by phone or by text

I won't discuss the radio element (radio as we mostly know it, e.g.

broadcast or All Informed transmissions) as I think it covered well

above. However the telephone element is fine, except that officers can

only phone OUT from the handsets. For a maximum of 10 minutes. They

cannot receive incoming *telephone* calls from anywhere, except

Superintendants and control room staff. Useful. Text? Don't make me

laugh.. if you saw how complicated it was to actually COMMUNICATE via

text message, you wouldn't bother either. It isn't as simple as just

write and send. If you want to send it to someone in the control room

it is even worse. It is a system that will never be used, despite us

being in the 'text generation' due to its complexity and high failure

rate. Point to Point communications, e.g. using the radio as a radio,

but for a private call between only two individuals works well

providing there is no one transmitting on the main talkgroup. In a busy

division like say <busy division>, there is rarely any point during the

day where there isn't traffic on the main talkgroup, thereby rendering

this otherwise useful service, totally useless. It is made even worse

by controllers being told that they MUST NOT authorise talkthru on the

main talkgroup. Great... so how do we communicate then? Oh.. I know..

back to personal mobiles it is then.

o) access to local and national databases

Oh? Where? I do not have access to PNC, local intelligence, or any

other kind of database from my handset. My 'access to local and

national databases' is as it ever was. Ask comms, go back to the car

and use the MDT, or waste even more time and go back to the station.

o) introduction of emergency button that will improve officer safety

Yes.. when it works. Numerous times officers have pressed their

emergency button only to be told 'call failed', or 'no coverage' or on

pressing it for the required two seconds, find it doesn't fire because

someone in comms happens to be talking at the time (Yes comms staff

have a higher transmission priority than the emergency button!). How is

it then that this will improve officer safety? I can't even hit people

with my radio anymore if needs be, as the thing will shatter in to a

million pieces. In UHF/VHF days I could scream 'HELP!' even if someone

was talking. The controller would have a hard time trying to hear me

over the other person when I gave details, but at least it was

possible. With Airwave I just get 'BUSY' if I try and transmit, and end

up in a queueing system. But of course, this improves officer safety.

As a side note, when you are getting your head kicked in, have you any

idea how long 2 seconds is...? The button is also extremely hard to

push in and keep pushed in, all while trying to defend yourself.

o) Improved communications will mean officers can be deployed to calls

more speedily.

If anything I have described above can be seen as 'improved', then you

need to seek help immediately. There was never a problem deploying

officers the old way. The majority of the time VHF/UHF worked fine, or

as a last resort sending the job to the car MDT.

o) Staff will be able to access information regarding incidents, people or vehicles directly through their Airwave radios.

Yes, we can retrieve some information regarding incidents, but it is

via text message, which we need to send first to request. It is a

convoluted process and by the time we have finished typing out the

request text message (which contains a lot of special characters like

, we'll probably be there. I cannot access any information regarding

people or vehicles directly via by handset. I suspect when we are

finally able to it will be via the same method, e.g. text, and will be

quicker to call the PNC desk and ask. Text messages are also limited to

120 characters. Not very useful at all. The last two sentences

consisted of 73 characters...

o) Improved communications will mean less time in the police station and more time on the streets.

Pure propoganda and an attempt to justify the 2.3 billion pound price

tag for the system. How improving communication will result in me

spending less time in the police station is a mystery. Is there a

feature of Airwave that automatically completes my paperwork for me?

Please tell me! I will gladly use it no matter how complex.

o) The ability to communicate directly with other forces and other emergency services.

Neither my county's fire or ambulance services subscribe to airwave. I

can chat to <neighbouring forces> if I want to, but the only force I

personally border with the majority of the time is a big expanse of

water.. so no advantage there.

o) "Our colleagues in other forces are already catching more criminals

as a result of using Airwaves digital technology."

One word. Tripe! Airwave offers nothing in effect - due to the

technical problems - that MASC or similar technologies doesn't offer

already. Pure propoganda again.

Yes this is a humerous, but none-the-less serious look at the state of

play in todays police radio service. Don't flame me for my comments and

points of view. I'm sure if you speak to other officers of any number

of forces, you will get a similar view point.

If you got this far, congratulations and thanks for reading. The next

time someone in authority mentions airwave to you, perhaps you'll

remember this post and be able to raise a few points with them. It

should be an interesting conversation... that is, if they decide they

want to continue to talk to you at all...

Yours,

PC 5029 Concerned Officer.

Some Station,

Some Force,

Some Where.

Paul Robson

unread,

4/24/05

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 ???

Concerned Officer

unread,

4/24/05

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.

David Norris

unread,

4/24/05

Concerned Officer wrote:

How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.

An Insider Evaluation of the Propaganda.

through the propaganda being issued by the Government, O2 and probably

work. The noise canceling was sold to us to also be a major advantage.

up in a queuing system. But of course, this improves officer safety.

As a side note, when you are getting your head kicked in, have you any

idea how long 2 seconds is...? The button is also extremely hard to

push in and keep pushed in, all while trying to defend yourself.

o) Improved communications will mean officers can be deployed to calls

more speedily.

If anything I have described above can be seen as 'improved', then you

need to seek help immediately. There was never a problem deploying

officers the old way. The majority of the time VHF/UHF worked fine, or

as a last resort sending the job to the car MDT.

o) Staff will be able to access information regarding incidents, people

or vehicles directly through their Airwave radios.

Yes, we can retrieve some information regarding incidents, but it is

via text message, which we need to send first to request. It is a

convoluted process and by the time we have finished typing out the

request text message (which contains a lot of special characters like

#), we'll probably be there. I cannot access any information regarding

people or vehicles directly via by handset. I suspect when we are

finally able to it will be via the same method, e.g. text, and will be

quicker to call the PNC desk and ask. Text messages are also limited to

120 characters. Not very useful at all. The last two sentences

consisted of 73 characters...

o) Improved communications will mean less time in the police station

and more time on the streets.

Pure propaganda and an attempt to justify the 2.3 billion pound price

tag for the system. How improving communication will result in me

spending less time in the police station is a mystery. Is there a

feature of Airwave that automatically completes my paperwork for me?

Please tell me! I will gladly use it no matter how complex.

o) The ability to communicate directly with other forces and other

emergency services.

Neither my county's fire or ambulance services subscribe to airwave. I

can chat to <neighbouring forces> if I want to, but the only force I

personally border with the majority of the time is a big expanse of

water.. so no advantage there.

o) "Our colleagues in other forces are already catching more criminals

as a result of using Airwaves digital technology."

One word. Tripe! Airwave offers nothing in effect - due to the

technical problems - that MASC or similar technologies doesn't offer

already. Pure propaganda again.

Yes this is a humerous, but none-the-less serious look at the state of

play in todays police radio service. Don't flame me for my comments and

points of view. I'm sure if you speak to other officers of any number

of forces, you will get a similar view point.

If you got this far, congratulations and thanks for reading. The next

time someone in authority mentions airwave to you, perhaps you'll

remember this post and be able to raise a few points with them. It

should be an interesting conversation... that is, if they decide they

want to continue to talk to you at all...

Yours,

PC 5029 Concerned Officer.

Some Station,

Some Force,

Some Where.

I suppose that this reads rather like an episode of Fawlty Towers only

without the funny side. Having said that, it's great that someone is

honest. The mention of the emergency button is perhaps the most

revealing

point - yes two seconds is far too long to wait and is not exactly

instant!

And three guesses as to why the fire and ambulance services have not

subscribed - and probably won't. So much for interoperability.

And trying to give out an assurance of 100% coverage countrywide

is about as

convincing as the assurance that the Titanic was unsinkable. No fancy

digital technology can change the laws of physics, making RF able to

penetrate a Faraday cage (aliases include steel framed buildings,

lifts,

underground carparks, basements and the occasional remote valley out of

'line of sight' from whereever the nearest base station may be).

Ken Ward

unread,

4/24/05

"Concerned Officer" <concerne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1114335827....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

What a waste of a "Gmail" account!

the saint

unread,

4/24/05

"Concerned Officer" <concerne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1114335827....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.

An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.

Neither my county's fire or ambulance services subscribe to airwave. I

can chat to <neighbouring forces> if I want to, but the only force I

personally border with the majority of the time is a big expanse of

water.. so no advantage there.

o) "Our colleagues in other forces are already catching more criminals

as a result of using Airwaves digital technology."

One word. Tripe! Airwave offers nothing in effect - due to the

technical problems - that MASC or similar technologies doesn't offer

already. Pure propoganda again.

I work in the Ambulance service where we have been told TETRA is

on the way.

Professionally I know a number of emergency services staff at all

levels and

in a variety of services - police, fire, ambulance - both

operational staff

and Control Staff. Clearly experiences and opinions are swapped.

I am only too aware of the hype which has been generated by

Airwave and the

vastly inflated claims being made for it. There is a LOT of

dissatisfaction

and much concern that it was and is being hastily foisted on us when no

proper chance was given to other technologies.

One day there will hopefully be - at the very least - a National Audit

Office enquiry into how Airwave came to be implemented/forced on

emergency

services. I feel sure that there will be serious questions to answer.

In the meantime I hope the problems (for problems there certainly

are, but

being kept quiet) are just teething problems and that they can be

sorted.

Simes

Matthew Brough (2E0BYM)

unread,

4/24/05

Brilliant post

Brian

unread,

4/25/05

"Paul Robson" <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in

message

news:pan.2005.04.2...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...

Hello,

It's crap compared to the old wide area encrypted network I used.

Everyone

could hear each other clearly and it didn't break up. It had the

occasional

UHF fluttering effect if in a difficult area, but nothing mad.

o2-AIRWAVE

was over budget and you should see the contract!

The data side of it doesn't work, so no sending in reports. The

pictures do

not work, so no pictures of suspects, the fingerprint scanning

doesn't work

and people are told not to use it to speak privately or for

"phone" because

it slows the system down.

It was a great idea on paper, but put it in the hands of people with a

degree (worthless piece of paper) with NO practical experience or

common

sense and it falls apart.

All o2-Airwave is good for is voice comms, but only in the areas

contracted

and agreed will have coverage. In a way planning permission was

obtained

almost by force to provide comms in some areas as the project was

already

agreed to. So it was another way of getting unrelated base stations and

aerials onto the same sites.

In Merseyside and Cheshire the system is worse than normal radios.

Brian

unread,

4/25/05

"Concerned Officer" <concerne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1114344510.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

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.

Brian

unread,

4/25/05

"the saint" <simon...@NOSPAMTHANKSyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:d4g9c4$tj$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Hello,

In Merseyside and Cheshire there is NO encryption on Airwave, the

fact it is

"digital" is thought to be enough to put people off having a go at

listening!

A lot of the Motorola handsets had difficulty with the encryption.

PromaBoss

unread,

4/25/05

concerned you are welcom to join

Tet...@yahoogroups.com

we have many people with interests in TETRA,many engineers and

experts and

end users

your post although not all read as yet looks interesting i am sure our

members too would find it interesting

regards,paul

"Concerned Officer" <concerne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1114335827....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Paul Robson

unread,

4/25/05

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:53:41 +0000, Brian wrote:

t's crap compared to the old wide area encrypted network I used. Everyone

could hear each other clearly and it didn't break up. It had the occasional

UHF fluttering effect if in a difficult area, but nothing mad. o2-AIRWAVE

was over budget and you should see the contract!

The data side of it doesn't work, so no sending in reports. The pictures do

not work, so no pictures of suspects, the fingerprint scanning doesn't work

and people are told not to use it to speak privately or for "phone" because

it slows the system down.

It was a great idea on paper, but put it in the hands of people with a

degree (worthless piece of paper) with NO practical experience or common

sense and it falls apart.

All o2-Airwave is good for is voice comms, but only in the areas contracted

and agreed will have coverage. In a way planning permission was obtained

almost by force to provide comms in some areas as the project was already

agreed to. So it was another way of getting unrelated base stations and

aerials onto the same sites.

In Merseyside and Cheshire the system is worse than normal radios.

Doesn't surprise me.

Though one error on your part. IME these systems are designed by

consultants, not technical people. Good technical people are well aware

that new tech. is , shall we say, unreliable. There is a phrase

KISS, keep

it simple, stupid.

The latest one is these ID cards. Whatever the rights & wrongs,

they are

making huge claims for the tech. which no-one I know of thinks

will work !

Consultants and Bureaucrats like it because it's new snazzy and

expensive,

and they can make flashy PR announcements.

As a cop equivalent ; one half expects our BiB to be given Palm

Pilots or

something to write their notes up on, simply because it's a flashy

gadget.

Simple things, like in this case a notebook, work.

Paul Robson

unread,

4/25/05

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

unread,

4/25/05

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.....

chas

unread,

4/25/05

As another police airwave user I have to say it is an utterly

shite system.

Officer safety IS being compromised.

Airwave drops out completely on a regular basis in the control

rooms, the

'hang time' to transmit is as long as EIGHT seconds sometimes - utterly

useless during a pursuit or something. The BUSY message is almost

permantently on and it is just NOT designed for busy areas on a Fri/Sat

night with lots of officers using it.

Do they expect us to f**ing run down the street texting on the

damn thing to

get updates?

The sooner the Federation and Unison or whoever the lazy arse reps

are, get

together and thrash it out with the Chief Constables - the sooner

officers

can start seeing improvements and have confidence in the system.

Message has been deleted

spencer bullen

unread,

4/25/05

"Concerned Officer" <concerne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1114335827....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.

An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.

Greetings,

I'm a PC in the Met, and a few months ago went from Borough to the

Transport

Operational Command Unit (TOCU), a Pan London unit of the Metropolitan

Police Service. The standard radio for the TOCU is the airwave

system, and

I was issued a new Motorola handset accordingly. However, all BOCUs

(Borough Operation Command Units, the new jobspeak for divisions)

operate on

the old Metradio system, which is 100% incompatible with Airwave.

As such,

I currently have to carry 2 radios: an Airwave to talk to my

pan-London TOCU

control room; and a Metradio to talk to local stations in order to

respond

to divisional shouts, request cell space etc.

I have a number of issues with the new Airwave, beyond the weight

issue of

carrying 2 radios, which I acknowledge is a consequence of the

transitional

period:

1) The flimsy design. The Motorola actually rattles when it's

shaken, and

is about as robust as an old mobile phone. A sergeant at my base

recently

had his old Metradio run over by a car and the carrier (a long

wheel base

Mercedes Sprinter van), and apart from scratches, it works as well as

before. Considering the back falls of my radio regularly, and the

battery

unclips with a jolt (such as running!), I doubt the new radio will be

anything like as solid as the old system.

2) Attachment. The Airwave system used attaches to a clip on the fabric

loop of my outer clothing, and doesn't have a remote mike (in the

old days

known as a PSM, public safety microphone). What this means is that

there is

only a couple of grams of cotton thread between me and the loss of

my radio.

Even the old Storno was securely clipped to my belt with a remote

microphone, and in a tussle I could rely on it staying on my belt,

albeit

with the microphone dangling loose. With very little effort my new

radio

could be sent into the yonder.

3) Microphone quality/position. The microphone of the airwave radio is

badly positioned. If pressing the PTT (Press To Talk Button) of the new

Airwave whilst it is attached to uniform, it is basically

impossible not to

cover the speaker with your hand whilst talking. The PTT is at top

right,

and the microphone is bottom left, and holding down effectively

occludes the

microphone with your palm. It is almost impossible to talk into

the radio

with it clipped to clothing, and most officers have to remove it

and chat

into it like a mobile phone. This means that one swipe would send

the radio

flying. OST (Officer Safety Training) dictates that radios should

never be

held loose in the hand; with the new Airwave, it is the only way

to talk.

4) Radiation. This is a subject I am talking on based on canteen gossip

rather then personal experience, and I apologise in advance for any

inaccuracies. Rumour has it that the handset releases far more radition

then a mobile phone, with the widely reported brain frying

consequences.

Beyond the above problems, reception is poor, the microphone seems

to pick

up background noise better then direct speech, and it is a wasted

oppurtunity. The trial was advertised as having the ability to

send photo

messages with wanted pictures, but the handset issued is a low

resolution

black and white LCD screen, with no such facility. All in all, the

technology that the Home Office is investing billions in seems outdated

before it is introduced.

I would like to think that the problems listed will be ironed out,

but I

doubt it. The Met has not fully installed MDTs (Mobile Data

Terminals) in

patrol vehicles, about 20 years after America (watch The Blues

Brothers, the

SCHMARDS system they illustrated was fully operational in the mid

80's), and

in terms of directional guidance is several generations behind

those of the

RSPCA (about 6 months ago I went in an RSPCA van for an arrest, and was

amazed how in advance of the Met they were). The new radio system

seems to

be a throw back to early 90's mobile phone technology, and misses

the chance

to bring police communications into the 21st century. I can only

hope that

the system being trialled is rejected, and something approaching modern

technology is introduced.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

PC, TOCU - MPS.

Maleficarum

unread,

4/25/05

"spencer bullen" <sblg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:YRSae.1726$8d4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

I'm in East Anglia and Airwaves is constantly down, crashing out

of reach

etc. Due to being a rural area the shortage of masts causes a constant

switching of airwaves back to VK. There is no data facility as far

as I am

aware and the only time Airwaves is actually used is in localised

incident

scenarios.

Regards,

Malef.

harrogate2

unread,

4/25/05

"Brian" <8t...@kcl.com> wrote in message

news:V9Rae.3762$p06....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

Sorry, the air interface IS encrypted, just as mobile phones are, but

from BTS to control is not.

String

unread,

4/25/05

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.

Not all radios have GPS built in. Only a few forces have bought GPS

equipped sets and those that have it isnt working properly.

String

unread,

4/25/05

Sorry, the air interface IS encrypted, just as mobile phones are, but

from BTS to control is not.

Which class air interface encryption are they using then? No key,

static or dynamic ?

PromaBoss

unread,

4/25/05

for peter who had a go at me and then changed the adress so i could not

reply to him

bottom posting twat fuck off and mind your own business

just having a go at me,who for once rarely did not snip,i usually

do but iso

what if sometimes one does not,looking at this thread i keep

seeing most who

also have not snipped either

why is it such sad twats like you exist,we talk about something

seriious and

lame brains like you have to get in

top posting means i dont have to scrawl down to the bottom to read

an answer

which icant beleive so many still do

regards,Paul

PromaBoss

unread,

4/25/05

yes your not only one carrying 2 sets BTP in london LUL division

also carry

one vhf set and an AIRWAVE as yet no AIRWAVE is working underground

also i have heard one recent incindent of many no doubt

4 officers went into a public toilet down some stairs on a

station,a railway

workers analgoue radio worked ok,the AIRWAVE lost it,thats no good

if an

offcier gets called to a location qand cant call for urgent assistance.

as for Metro lima TOCU units yes the system uses all the old traffic

talkgroups and also some other talkgrpoups in METRADIO trunking

network plus

as you say AIRWAVE.

but very few in Met use AIRWAVE as yet and its been delayed time

and time

again and now delayed yet again,specialist squads are better off

using there

Cougarnet military style secure radios[which can go analogue if

needed] they

have proved relaible for many years now.

Firearms teams across UK certainly dont like using AIRWAVE on actual

operations or siege situations and are preferring to use there old

analogue

channels,where there single freq back to back is more reliable.

ok speaking as a scanner user ok will be sad to lose my Met police

scanning,currently trunk tracking scanners do the job real

well,but i also

aknowledge some security in both terms of data protection act and doing

persons checks and so on,which i have always felt wong to be done

on an open

channel,and also officer safety there has to be a secure system in

use but

switchable would be better,go secure if needed,this is perfectly

possible

go to an amercian airbase,one minute you hear on there base coms

analgouge

speeach,then one says "go green" and press of a button coversation

is now

secure.

thats whats needed,some stuff for public domain as the original post

said,some of us scannerists in UK but more so in USA have heleped

police in

past,full digital then thats all gone.

regards,Paul

PromaBoss

unread,

4/25/05

encyprtion also proved a problem for the customs on there digital

system

intorduced couple of years back,yes happy with it digitsied but

encrytpion

led to more problems

regards,Paul

Ralph A. Schmid, DK5RAS

unread,

4/25/05

"harrogate2" <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Sorry, the air interface IS encrypted, just as mobile phones are, but

from BTS to control is not.

Encryption is a feature that has to be enabled in Tetra networks, it

is not active from default, and it requires a key management.

regards - Ralph

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

Paul Robson

unread,

4/25/05

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:07:56 +0000, chas wrote:

As another police airwave user I have to say it is an utterly shite system.

Officer safety IS being compromised.

Airwave drops out completely on a regular basis in the control rooms, the

'hang time' to transmit is as long as EIGHT seconds sometimes - utterly

useless during a pursuit or something. The BUSY message is almost

permantently on and it is just NOT designed for busy areas on a Fri/Sat

night with lots of officers using it.

Do they expect us to f**ing run down the street texting on the damn thing to

get updates?

I'm not being rude, but I find difficult to believe that people are

seriously considering using texting as a communications system.

It's all

right if you want to send HOW U DUDE but it's not really useful beyond

that.

IMO in the mobile world it's more of an expensive gimmick than anything

else.

Are you Cops just being given cheap modified mobile phones ?

Ralph A. Schmid, DK5RAS

unread,

4/25/05

Paul Robson <auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

Are you Cops just being given cheap modified mobile phones ?

Sounds like the lower end Motorola Tetra handhelds, really more a

phone than a real, tough radio 🙁

Watcher

unread,

4/25/05

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

<concerne...@gmail.com> wrote:

How the Police, and the Public, are being mislead about Airwave.

An Insider Evaluation of the Propoganda.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am posting this in a few choice UK newsgroups who have some interest

in the police radio system. If you take offence to this then I

apologise, but I think you will find what this post contains

interesting. At least I hope you do!

<SNIP>

PC 5029 Concerned Officer.

Some Station,

Some Force,

Some Where.

Hallo Concerned Officer and others

Thank you for some interesting posts on the subject.

Over the last few months I have been building a picture of the

situation in the UK. To myself,as someone who has been involved in

planning and implementing radio-systems for the blue-light services

over the last 20 years it would appear that many problems highlighted

are due to poor implementation and planning rather than fundamental

problems with the technology itself.

I am very interested in establishing a dialogue with any user /

technician in the UK.

I am in Germany, where we are at present in the process of introducing

a new digital-radio system for ALL emergency services. Obviously we

will be aiming to avoid pitfalls experienced by other countries - so

my request is quite simple:

If anybody would be prepared to contact me off-list and provide this

dialogue I would guarantee total confidentiality.

Watcher

IMPORTANT: Please remove "hat" before replying by Email

Paul

unread,

4/25/05

Uh?

I think you have posted to the wrong group Paul, as this does not make

any sense in the context of any messages that have been posted on

alt.radio.scanner.uk, and in particular to spencer bullen's message to

which you replied.

PromaBoss

unread,

4/25/05

again it woul be good for you to join

tet...@yahoogroups.com

we have many technical and end users on our group

including the man in charge of last years Olympics communications

which was

a TETRA system.

plus others charged with implementing TETRA and TETRAPOL systems

in many

countries

PromaBoss

unread,

4/25/05

i wa replying to this one

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:18:28 GMT, "PromaBoss" <Proma...@ntlworld.com>

wrote:

concerned you are welcom to join

<snip - hundred of lines stupidly quoted below top post and stupidly

re-crossposted>