Fulton County's TRS

[jackj]

Has anyone else been having problems receiving Fulton Co. TRS today? Signal strength is way down with garbled voices even on my discone,. A barn fire today on 5-2 with several departments out was not copyable on the 700 MHz system. Most of what I heard was on the Lucas 800 MHz system.

[jackj]

Originally Posted by jackj

Has anyone else been having problems receiving Fulton Co. TRS today? Signal strength is way down with garbled voices even on my discone,. A barn fire today on 5-2 with several departments out was not copyable on the 700 MHz system. Most of what I heard was on the Lucas 800 MHz system.

Uhhh, never mind. I just noticed that the global attenuator was switched on. I sat here all morning feeling sorry for myself because I couldn't understand anything. Now I set here PO'd at myself for hitting the button without noticing it.

[Thunderbolt]

Thanks to a really good band opening tonight, I have been able to hear this TRS like it's next door to me. I ran Pro96Com, and came up with the following UNID talkgroups. Can anyone shed some light on these? Here they are with RID affiliated with them:

• 10483 / 8734142
• 10672 / 5085

73's


Ron

[atfd291]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt

Thanks to a really good band opening tonight, I have been able to hear this TRS like it's next door to me. I ran Pro96Com, and came up with the following UNID talkgroups. Can anyone shed some light on these? Here they are with RID affiliated with them:

• 10483 / 8734142
• 10672 / 5085

73's


Ron

Regarding 10483 and the associated radio ID. For those that are in the area and can do some digging, i've noticed that all the radios on the new Wood County TGs start with 87... so, at first glance, my educated guess would be that it's a Wood County TG. </$.02>

[wa8pyr]

Originally Posted by atfd291

Regarding 10483 and the associated radio ID. For those that are in the area and can do some digging, i've noticed that all the radios on the new Wood County TGs start with 87... so, at first glance, my educated guess would be that it's a Wood County TG. </$.02>

Per the new statewide plan, all P25 IDs in Ohio will start with the county number (01 through 88). State agencies and others use 89 through 99. The use of the remaining five digits are determined locally by each county; some might elect to use an internally devised numbering scheme, while others might elect to simply use IDs as randomly assigned.

[jmorzan]

Originally Posted by FireDawgEMT22

They also had planned on doing a patch on Fulton Fire 2 TG to the VHF. That way responding volunteers can hear the radio traffic on their pagers. Doing a full time patch on FF2 to VHF and a timed patch on FF1 to VHF only when tones are dropped.

I am wondering if you have heard of anything about the patching of Fulton Fire TG to the VHF? I am on a Fire Dept. in Fulton County. I am tired of not being able to hear any truck traffic anymore through my pager and scanner. So I have been debating whether to buy a new scanner to be able to hear the truck traffic, OR purchasing a used portable (xts 2500). Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the radio system so I am not sure what all I would have to do if I purchased a portable radio. Would I have to purchase anything such as a license or ID to be able to monitor the channels provided I had someone program them for me? I would prefer purchasing a portable radio over the scanner as i would be able to utilize monitoring traffic as i am on my way to the fire station and utilize it during calls. If anyone could give me any advise on this subject I would greatly appreciate it, and would like some further info about purchasing portables.

[jackj]

I am having a problem that I do not understand. My scanner, a PSR-800, seems to have problems latching onto or staying latched to Fulton Co.'s Control Channel. I'm located in Delta and using my RS 800 MHz antenna, the signal strength is 4 - 5 bars on the traffic channels yet the Trunking icon (the 'T') flashes on for about a second then goes out for about 5 seconds. I am also missing the beginning of some traffic. I have both the primary and secondary CC channels programmed but it behaves that way with only the primary CC entered. Yet when the Discone antenna, up about 40 ft, is connected the 'T' is on about 95% of the time and I don't seem to be missing any traffic. Fulton County is the only system behaving in this way, MARCS as well as Lucas Co's NWO system is good. Using the Discone, Michigan's trunked system shows about 3 bars but the 'T' is on around 95% of the time and voice traffic is solid.

I'd really like to find out what my problem is, kind of ridiculous to have a portable scanner yet have to tie it to an outside antenna in order to pick up a system that's only about 7 miles away. If anyone has any suggestions, please DON'T keep them to yourself.

[rdale]

It's the same CQPSK issue that has plagued every CQPSK P25 system known to man

It's all about location, location, location, and antenna. There is nothing you can do in or to the radio to change that. MARCS is not simulcast in your area, and if you were in Toledo you would notice the same problem on the Toledo system.

[jackj]

Thanks for your reply rdale. But my problem isn't a simulcast issue. You are right MARCS as well as the Michigan systems are not simulcast. But neither is Fulton Co. True, it uses the NW Ohio controller and the traffic is also on their system, but Fulton Co. is on 770 MHz and is the only tower in this area transmitting on those frequencies. Nor does it appear to be a signal strength problem as weaker systems are solid. I have racked my brain trying everything I can think of to isolate the problem without success. I'm going to Wauseon this afternoon and I'm going to take the scanner and park under the tower to see if it is still messed up.

[rdale]

Ahh - I see what you're saying... I'm still going with antenna/location, but and you might not want to park under the tower to compare. Maybe 1-2 miles away.

[wa8pyr]

Originally Posted by jackj

Thanks for your reply rdale. But my problem isn't a simulcast issue. You are right MARCS as well as the Michigan systems are not simulcast. But neither is Fulton Co. True, it uses the NW Ohio controller and the traffic is also on their system, but Fulton Co. is on 770 MHz and is the only tower in this area transmitting on those frequencies. Nor does it appear to be a signal strength problem as weaker systems are solid. I have racked my brain trying everything I can think of to isolate the problem without success. I'm going to Wauseon this afternoon and I'm going to take the scanner and park under the tower to see if it is still messed up.

Check to make sure that you're not scanning multiple sites; if the indicator pops up for a second or two then vanishes for several seconds, that sounds a lot like it's leaving the control channel, scanning other control channels for activity, then returning to the primary CC.

[jackj]

Okay, got mom a new TV and it is setup in her sewing room so now I can work on my projects. First off, I took the scanner with me to Wauseon and it is just as bad in the hospital's parking lot as well as WalMart's. So I'm thinking that either I have a problem with internal birdies or it is something with their system. I don't think its their system, nobody else is complaining so I'll try to figure a way to check for birdies, maybe program the frequency into my 996T as WFM or AM and hold the 800 up to the antenna. But that's a project for tomorrow.

Tom, I thought the same as you that it was jumping to the secondary CCs looking for a better signal. I removed all frequencies except for the primary CC and it behaved the same. Fulton County is the only system I am monitoring most of the time so it isn't normal scanning interruptions.

Just tried the Discone on the scanner and its good, turned on the global attenuator and its bad. So it is related to signal strength or a noise problem. I don't understand why it would be bad both under the antenna as well as about 1 mile away from the tower, there should have been bucket fulls of signal.

[rdale]

Why not program the trunked system in your 996T and do a side-by-side?

[jackj]

rdale, I've done that and that is when I noticed that my 800 wasn't getting the first part of the transmission. The 996 was picking up the conversation from the start but the 800 would come in about 2 or 3 seconds into the transmission.

I did some crude checks for a birdie this morning, none found but the problem isn't fixed either. I don't know if this means anything but the audio out of the 800 had about a 1/2 second delay compared to the 996. It was like I was monitoring the same traffic on two different systems but both scanners were controlled by the same CC so that shouldn't have been the case. Either the 800 has a slower microprocessor or it does some additional massaging on the audio.