Archive

ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: Clear the cloud cover on OpenSky | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Trib editorial: Clear the cloud cover on OpenSky

webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative
webpolice9
Metrocreative

It was supposed to bring Pennsylvania’s statewide police radio communications into the 21st century. Instead, the system dubbed OpenSky left state police radio communications disrupted — if not occasionally disconnected.

Now years after its scheduled implementation, at a cost four times its original estimate, answers are owed about this $800 million boondoggle.

An audit is a starting point in determining how a radio system, authorized in 1996 at a cost of $179 million, devolved into a techno-morass that actually impaired state police communications in major investigations — most notably, during the manhunt for Eric Frein, who killed a trooper during a 2014 ambush outside a state police barracks in the Poconos.

In recent Senate testimony, state police Maj. Diane Stackhouse said OpenSky was “worthless during the Frein manhunt.” The proprietary system so badly inhibited communications with local and federal authorities that another system was brought in.

And while the replacement P25 radio system is now being used in four Pennsylvania counties, with four more to be added by June, there remains the matter of clearing the cloud cover that looms over OpenSky. At least one state senator has called for a criminal investigation, which the state Attorney General’s Office at this point would not confirm or deny.

Ultimately what’s needed, and long overdue, is a refund.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.