Need updates for Los Angeles County

Status
Not open for further replies.

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,204
It seems with the change from the TypeII to the P25 ICIS system, some agencies were left behind in the database and I'd like some clarification on what is where so the DB can be cleaned up.

Here's a list of things:

Conventional freqs are still listed for the following agencies but it appears these agencies moved to the P25 ICIS system. Are the conventional freqs still active?

*Azusa PD

*Beverly Hills PD

*Burbank PD

*Covina PD

*Culver City - Fire

*Glendale

*Glendora

*Irwindale

*La Verne

*Montebello - Has link to old ICIS but talkgroups are listed on the P25 ICIS. Remove link to old system, add link to new system?

*Pasadena

*Pomona

*San Marino - Has link to old ICIS, but talkgroups are listed on the P25 ICIS. Remove link to old system, add link to new system?

*Sierra Madre - Didn't they get gobbled up by another department?

*South Pasadena

*Verdugo Fire - Did all ops go to ICIS?

*West Covina - Has talkgroups listed on P25 ICIS but no link to the system. Add link to P25 ICIS? Are old freqs still active?



And, if agencies have moved to the P25 ICIS, are the old ICIS talkgroups still in use?


Thanks!
 

LAflyer

Global DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,827
Location
SoCal
All the agencies and talkgroups listed on the SmartZone system should remain in the Db, as the manner the ICIS system works is based on affiliation.

So in theory as long as Culver City and Montebello SmartZone sites are still on the air, users from outside areas could still affiliate with them.

Only when these last few sites are upgraded to P25 can the SmartZone system be depreciated.

Speaking from experience, I tend to receive regular email/PM updates from listeners and other parties in the know with information in addition to postings in the relevant ICIS forum thread which is a sticky on the front page in order to action Db updates.

Lastly regarding the analog frequencies to my knowledge things are still correct. Many agencies or cities might be members of ICIS but either do not utilize the system full time, or simply have ICIS talkgroups for future or part time use, and still hold and utilize their analog frequencies such as Beverly Hills. Another set of agencies like Verdugo and Culver City are on ICIS primarily but analog frequencies are used for secondary, mutual aid, or multi agency ops.
 
Last edited:

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,204
I'm not talking about depreciating the system, I'm talking about what is each of these agencies primary form of communication.

Montebello PD is listed in three different places. Conventinal, ICIS and P25 ICIS. Azusa PD is listed in two different places Etc

Same with the talk groups in the smartzone system that are listed as deprecated. Do those need to remain?

I just think a note should be made that whatever system is primary and whatever system is backup? Otherwise info is all over the place and difficult to distinguish for those visiting the area for example.
 

LAflyer

Global DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,827
Location
SoCal
Montebello PD is listed in three different places. Conventinal, ICIS and P25 ICIS.
All 3 are correct.
Montebello talkgroups can appear on both the older Montebello ICIS SmartZone and adjacent newer ICIS P25 sites. Its simply the manner ICIS works, and based on which site field units associate with.
While UHF conventional frequencies are also very current and used for PD access and for LA County Area E Cities Fireground Tac.

Once the remaining older ICIS SmartZone sites are upgrade to P25 (2017?) then we can depreciated the SmartZone system entirely and avoid needing to double list talkgroups across both systems.

Azusa PD is listed in two different places Etc
Same here, both are valid. Azusa recently joined ICIS, but due to extensive ongoing problems with the ESGV site has often had to revert back to their conventional frequencies for extended periods.
Hopefully this can be rectified later this summer once recently authorized replacement UHF frequency pairs replace all the current ESGV site frequencies and eliminate ongoing interference issues.
 

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,204
Ok, well as long as you got a handle on all that haha. From an outsider not from the area, it's very confusing and just looks messy, but LA county is just different like that I guess
 

LAflyer

Global DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,827
Location
SoCal
Yes with LACo having 88 incorporated cities it can certainly get confusing and start to look like a mess.

I'll review the page and see what can be tidied up.
 

allend

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
1,378
Location
Long Beach, CA
I think California years ago should of invested the money to build out a statewide system like other states have done. I know there are so many cities and mountains and terrain but it could of been done.

I think if other states have done and been successful then California could of been successful at it too.
 

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,204
I think California years ago should of invested the money to build out a statewide system like other states have done. I know there are so many cities and mountains and terrain but it could of been done.

I think if other states have done and been successful then California could of been successful at it too.

Other flat states have done it, sure. I guess it could be done but would costs hundreds of millions the state doesn't have. Would also have to include at least 500 or more sites. Would never happen.
 

Eng74

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,035
Location
Kern County, CA
I think California years ago should of invested the money to build out a statewide system like other states have done. I know there are so many cities and mountains and terrain but it could of been done.

I think if other states have done and been successful then California could of been successful at it too.

It would cause more problems. California has been doing interop before most people heard about it. In my county we work with both USFS and BLM, sometimes like the Erskine fire at the same time. We all have each other's frequencys and mutual channels in all the radios. It works all a state wide system is good for is to make a lot of money for a radio company. By the time a state wide system could be finished it would be obsolete.
 

LAflyer

Global DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,827
Location
SoCal
Be a terrible boondoggle.

Just look at LA County and LA-RICS -- at $600mil and 6-years later and not much yet to show for it with multiple cities including the largest City of LA having bailed out on the project.

State of CA cant even get its own governmental agencies on single radio system, let alone design one for all the states cities and counties to use. Forget it.
 

Eng74

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,035
Location
Kern County, CA
Be a terrible boondoggle.

Just look at LA County and LA-RICS -- at $600mil and 6-years later and not much yet to show for it with multiple cities including the largest City of LA having bailed out on the project.

State of CA cant even get its own governmental agencies on single radio system, let alone design one for all the states cities and counties to use. Forget it.

We have High Speed Rail Project for the State, one boondoggle at a time please. Lol
Sorry to go off topic.
 

gman65

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
68
Location
Woodland Hills, CA
We have High Speed Rail Project for the State, one boondoggle at a time please. Lol
Sorry to go off topic.

Politics aside, High Speed Rail will need to build a statewide system for it's coverage area. Incorporating a mutual aid system will make a lot of sense and may be necessary for agency interoperability. New sites will have to be constructed anyway. Adding expanded capability would be easy. Many first responders in its path will need equipment upgrades to meet the requirements of the system anyway. Interop grants can help facilitate the process.

A statewide mutual aid system makes more sense and would be less complicated than trying to get so many agencies on to one. The problem is it if it makes sense, they won't do it.
 

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,204
Politics aside, High Speed Rail will need to build a statewide system for it's coverage area. Incorporating a mutual aid system will make a lot of sense and may be necessary for agency interoperability. New sites will have to be constructed anyway. Adding expanded capability would be easy. Many first responders in its path will need equipment upgrades to meet the requirements of the system anyway. Interop grants can help facilitate the process.

A statewide mutual aid system makes more sense and would be less complicated than trying to get so many agencies on to one. The problem is it if it makes sense, they won't do it.

We are starting to drift of the topic here, but a radio system for a rail project and it's small footprint compared to the entire state of California is 1000 times less complicated than a full statewide system. Not a very similar comparison at all.
 

marcotor

I ♥ÆS Ø
Feed Provider
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
1,132
Location
Sunny SoCal
What's CLEMARS?

The California Legal Entity forMerly Around Rosedale System ;)

Funny thing is, when I was in High School in the late 70's in North San Diego County, Sheriff's patrol units used CLEMARS VHF (UHF was OrCo Red, so it was not available) almost as much as their UHF system.

Veering to the topic, I still hear traffic on most all of the "old" SGV channels.
 
Last edited:

Eng74

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,035
Location
Kern County, CA
Just like CALCORD, There are several Inyo County deputies who live in my town who thought they were talking on their own Tac channel. I knew one of them and sent him a text, he had no idea what CALCORD was. Radio training, other than the basics of how to use it just seems to be overlooked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top