Colorado DTR VHF Interoperability

Status
Not open for further replies.

rfburns

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
1,029
I don't think this has been implemented. Has anyone ever heard this in operation? What are the VHF frequencies? What is a region? Is the region mentioned here the same boundaries as the MAC channel regions? Note that this says a NEW VHF channel shall be installed. It does not refer to existing CSP VHF channels etc. I snipped the part about the use of NLEEC as that should be obvious.

State of Colorado

Digital Trunked Radio System

VHF - 800 MHz. Interoperability

One of the key issues with the migration from the existing VHF (150 MHz.) conventional radio system to the 800 MHz. digital trunked radio system (DTRS) is inter-operability between the two systems. There are two scenarios that require this type of inter-operability. The first is for users who choose not to, or cannot afford to migrate when the state does. The second is for users who reside in an area that is not yet converted to the DTRS and travel into an area that has been converted. These requirements exist for communications between various state agencies and/or with local and federal agencies

In the design of the DTRS both of these scenarios have been considered and two methods will be available to establish inter-system inter-operability. The primary method will be to use inter-system access channels. The secondary method is to use the National Law Enforcement Emergency Channel (NLEEC)

PRIMARY METHOD

This method will be implemented to meet the requirements for users who reside in an area that has not migrated to the DTRS and travels into an area that has already migrated, and for direct unit to unit communications between users on the DTRS and those using existing VHF systems.



A new VHF channel will be installed at the state tower locations when the DTRS is installed. This access channel will be the same within geographic regions. Different regions will have different access channels in order to prevent interference. These new VHF access channels will be permanently cross patched to a specific channel (talkgroup) in the DTRS. VHF system users will need to have the access channel(s) programmed into their radios. All radios on the DTRS will have the access channels. Users on both systems should scan the common channels for optimum usability.

When a VHF users needs to communicate with a DTRS user, They will select the DTRS access channel and call the unit they wish to communicate with, whose scanner will hear the calling unit. The called unit will then select the access channel allowing direct communications. This method will also work in the other direction when a DTRS user needs to talk to a VHF user. Multiple access channels will be installed in areas where one channel is not sufficient for high volumes of radio traffic.

The need for inter-system inter-operability was defined very early in the planning for the DTRS. It is a high priority in the technical system design and will be an integral part of the system implementation. With 2 methods available to achieve inter-operability, local and federal users will continue to be able to communicate with state agencies and with each other.
 

Halfpint

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
949
Location
Slightly NE of the People's Republic of Firestone
Hmmmmm... Interesting.

This raises, at least for me, a couple more questions...

1.) Only *1* `channel'? Has the State completely abrogated *all* of their VHF-Hi freqs *or* are they holding onto them for some `special' reason and are wanting to pick up a few more for that same reason? (Sub Question... How many CSP, and `other' State, units *still* have their VHF radios along with the DTRS ones?) I would wonder just what might happen if that *1* `channel?' / `freq' happened to be called upon to handle *more* than just an `occasional' useage because of some sort of `problem', I don't really want to use the term `disaster' as there could be something less that could also tie-up a single `channel' / `freq' fairly well, that *could* `swamp' a single `channel' /`freq' in those areas that are still using VHF-Hi.

2.) What about agencies that are still using UHF-Lo? While there are probably not as many these days as there *may* be VHF-Hi users are they going to just be left `hanging out to dry' / `slowly twisting in the wind'?

This whole thing sounds a bit `hinky' to me. In some ways it sounds like some sort of `sop' thrown to those agencies still using VHF-Hi and yet... also sounds like it may be some sort of `overture' to an attempt at a very limited try at a `WyoLink' type setup because of a belated realization that `just maybe?' 800MHz actually has some serious limitations in certain areas and they need to `address' them. I can sort of understand, slightly, the hubris that drives them to keep up the `drive' to try and cover the whole State with 800. But unless they actually are planning on putting up sites as, or more since anyone who has a cellphone and has traveled around more than just a bit knows that coverage can be spotty even on the more traveled routes, numerous as Cell Sites throughout the whole State they are going to end having to do so.

Oh, well... I guess this is yet another one of those things we'll just have to sit back and wait to see just what kind of `kettle of fish' they are getting themselves into and if they can figure out how to get out of it?

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {WAN GRIN!}
 

eyes00only

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
2,812
Location
Denver Colorado
It is a bit ironic that with the MILLIONS spent on the DTRS, they still need some good old (strong / dependable) VHF frequencies.

Another 2¢ worth from another old fart.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top