|
To: Mark Dunn, James Walsh, John Godfrey
13 May 2004
Dear Mr Dunn, gentlemen
[attachment]
I know that this is in some senses "promotional literature", but then we have had rather a lot of Airwave promotional literature over past months, and in terms of the roll-out picture, this presentation does appear to be an accurate enough representation.
However, the attached document does require some response, namely in regard to the comparison of costs of ownership between TETRA and TETRAPOL (for example). Can you say in what way TETRA represents value for money for the people of Sussex, since all your local Council Tax payers are footing this bill?
How aware are you of the future cost of ownership of Airwave? I fear Council Tax payers are even less aware, and you should be telling us, so that we might agree in public on the best value issue. Your resources are limited, and we sincerely want best value in crime prevention and detection, and in visible and reassuring policing. Can you state categorically that the cost per handset of TETRA is NOT three times that of TETRAPOL? We appreciate that one should rarely buy on grounds of cost alone, but resources are limited and you implicitly suggest that TETRAPOL is not good enough. In comparison with your current VHF, 'even' TETRAPOL is light years ahead!
I think there are public questions demanding public answers.
- When the initial subsidy for your first deployment of TETRA handsets and other equipment has run out, how will you be paying for the additional required equipment?
- How much will it cost to then extend core coverage, and to add police national computer connectivity and data transfer, or for DVLA?
- Is the GPRS data portal, proposed by Airwave to cover this deficiency, compliant with full security standards? Since TETRAPOL can already do this, wherein is the advantage of TETRA?
- When do you expect to be able to consider TETRA 2 for its potential enhancements, and what will be the estimated costs of the required total re-equipment?
Aside from costs, I am extremely disappointed that my letter of 22 February remains unanswered. Some other of your Airwave personnel have been extremely voluble in their replies, though not entirely correct. Re-reading my initial correspondence, I still would frame my basic arguments the same way, and none of them has been answered. If my early and rudimentary arguments are not so readily answered, how have you already come to the conclusion that Airwave is good and safe for the population of Sussex? I would have thought the answers would come very readily and clearly.*
yours sincerely
Andy Davidson
|
