Possible MAC Ch Changes

[jimmnn]

The Colorado Digital Trunked Radio (DTR) System initially
created 5 regions, each with 4 mutual aid channels (MAC). The formation
of the MAC regions was done prior to the creation of the All Hazards
regions and as a result the current 5 MAC regions span multiple All
Hazards regions. Since the MAC regions are much larger than the All
Hazard regions, there are significant overlap and boundary
inconsistencies.

In Several areas of the State, the All Hazards regions share the
same DTR MAC channels which could create a lack of resources when
multiple incident are going on in different All Hazards regions.

The Combined Communication Network of Colorado (CCNC)
is the users group that sets policies and procedures for DTR. CCNC is
considering the realignment of the MAC channel regions with the
All Hazards regions. This would increase the number of regional MAC
channels from 20 to 36. This will provide the ability for the
each All Hazards region to have a unique set of DTR MAC channels.

Realignment of the MAC Channels will require all existing DTR
radios to be reprogrammed and may take up more channels in the radios.
The reprogramming could be done as new radios are initially
programmed, existing radios are reprogrammed or during the rebanding upgrade
later this year.

Before a final decision is made, CCNC would like to ask each All
Hazards region to discuss this within its region and its
communications committee. This will also be a topic for further discussion
at the next All Hazards meeting on February 10th.

Jim<

 

[skipshark773]

interesting....as it stands now the XTS I carry when working has all the MAC Channels for my region and then the first one from every other region, then MAC21 the statewide channel. It also has the I-TAC's and S-TAC in both repeat and simplex. I wonder how they plan on squeezing more channels into our 48 mode radios. It should be interesting to see how all of this plays out....

 

[datainmotion]

Or they could just carry a VHF handheld w/ common channels and dump the whole overblown DTRS principle.

I'm sorry to go off topic here; the technology is amazing but all this just to talk to each other? Call me crazy, but hasn't this become way over-complicated?

OK - that'll be enough out of me.

 

[skipshark773]

While this may be true, interoperability is extremely important. The department I used to work for in Maryland had never even thought of incorporating interoperability into their trunked system which wasnt near as complicated, expensive, or well thought out as the CO DTRS. Our idea of interop was calling our dispatcher who would call the other jurisdictions dispatcher by landline and then relay the message back to us. By the time we got the info it was already stale, not to mention it severly crippled a coordinated response between LE agencies on a scene. We would be standing next to officers from other agencies who had no idea what or who we were looking for, nor did they have the means of obtaining the information quickly and easily. Just my .02, i dont think the state would ever revert to VHF conventional since they've already invested so much into the DTRS too...

 

[datainmotion]

I concur that interoperability is important. My post was really somewhat tongue in cheek (hence the closer). Reverting back to the old system would be political suicide for many. I read Jim's post and played layman for a minute and realized how overly complicated this all must look from the outside. And it is.

But its good to look in from the outside occasionally to see if we miss the obvious; i.e. - are these very complex systems really necessary and wonder if it hasn't become so complex that a simpler way must exist.

But I digress as I feel a slight philisophical rant coming on that really should have its own thread and not highjack the excellent informational thread Jim started.

 

[skipshark773]

agreed, i do concur that sometimes in the rush for better technology we loose sight of previous efforts that have worked well in the past. [/digression]

 

[eyes00only]

It also has the I-TAC's and S-TAC in both repeat and simplex.

The simplex part is interesting!

Jerry

 

[skipshark773]

yes, i submitted the information for them to the database but it didnt get posted.

[edit]: Heres how it looks in the radio
A10 ITAC 1
A11 ITAC 2
A12 ITAC 3
A13 ITAC 4
A14 STAC 5
B10 SIMPX 1
B11 SIMPX 2
B12 SIMPX 3
B13 SIMPX 4
B14 SIMPX 5

 

[eyes00only]

Thanks / Please introduce yourself to me if you're going to be at the meeting next month.

Jerry

 

[skipshark773]

no problem, unfortunately I wont be able to make it to the feb's meeting, but eventually Ill make it to one.

 

[eyes00only]

I've only made it to one meeting (the last one), and half way through it I had to leave because my employee didn't show up for his shift. There was a huge turnout, and I only met a few people. Luke, who owns the restaurant was a great host. I hope you can make it to a future meeting!

Jerry