06/08/2026
Item 19
/IcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
rom:
ent:
b:
ubject:
humaira afzal
Monday, June 8, 2026 3:00 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
public comment on item 19 - Motorola Contract (June 8 City Council meeting) Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
^ity Council Members,
have written previously about Motorola Solutions problemmatic relationship with the Department of -lomeland Security. Ratherthan repeat those concerns, I am focusing on issues raised by the June 8 staff report egarding the proposed contract with Motorola Solutions. Pasadena is one of the thousands of municipalities icross the United States that has indefinitely locked itself into a Motorola Solutions based infrastructure for lublic safety communications. I urge city council members to acknowledge this, address how the City got itself nthis situation, committo avoiding future contractual and interagency arrangements that are based on nfrastructure controlled by one or a few companies, and work towards extracting itself (and the ICI) from its lependence on Motorola Solutions products.
'he central message of the June 8 Department of Information Technology report on the proposed contract with Motorola Solutions is that the City cannot realistically move away from Motorola because it is part of the nteragency Communications Interoperability (ICI) System, which has a "cumulative investment exceeding $230 Million in Motorola infrastructure." The issue is not that Pasadena is part of an integrated system, but that this ihared regional infrastructure is dependent on ONE company. 'he high-switching cost is by design. Motorola Solutions has for decades set up emergency radio networks that jtilize specialized encryption and proprietary software protocols that force government entities to continue )uying Motorola hardware to ensure system compatibility. Motorola has also encouraged cooperative )urchasing contracts in order to avoid standard bidding processes. These cooperative contracts may speed up irocurement processes, but they have also enabled Motorola to become the single vendor dominating public- safety communications infrastructure and it has facilitated the circumvention of fair-market bidding. The ;ontract under review by City Council today is just another example of that. With Friends in Government, Motorola Beats a Path to Telecom Supremacy, an article from 2014, explains how Motorola was already )ursuing industry dominance by questionable means over a decade ago. the situation has only gotten worse.
Government officials - ranging for city councils to federal agencies - have been handing Motorola lucrative, loncompetitive contracts for decades. As a result, cities like Pasadena now find themselves essentially locked nto long-term (if not permanent) systems that are dependent on Motorola infrastructure. This has almost certainly been at the cost of the most efficient use of government dollars because contracts tied to a monopoly n an industry are never a good deal. It has also enabled Motorola to continue acquiring more and more companies in order to dominate additional sectors (such as drones for the public safety sector). urge City Council to commit to stop feeding the Motorola profit machine. In addition to a history of problematic )usiness practices (such as providing communications equipment to apartheid South Africa police or making )omb fuses for the Israeli military, or providing communication and surveillance equipment to DHS), Motorola las monopoly control over our regional public safety communications equipment (and more). This doesn't have o be permanent, but it will continue unless our City's leaders acknowledge the problem and commit to addressing it. We have a multitude of other community needs that are not being met because of the inefficient ise of city funds in noncompetitive, monopolistic contracts. "Deals" offered by monopolies are only good for he companies like Motorola that exercise control over an industry. regards,
-lumairaAfzal, PhD
)istrict7
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.