• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Bath, NY - Steuben legislators agree to buy $1.1 million radio system

Status
Not open for further replies.

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,390
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
"The FCC intends to sell airwaves now used by responders and could order police, fire and ambulance crews to cut their transmissions once the new regulations take effect, Alger said."

You just can't sell a system or pitch a capital expense with facts anymore.
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,217
Location
Rensselaer, NY
Isn't it some sort of criminal offense to lie like that as part of one's official duties of elected office?
 

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
7,143
Location
BEE00
It's not lying, it's flat out sheer ignorance. These "communications consulting" outfits or manufacturer's salespeople come in and sell these outfits a load of BS, usually resorting to fear tactics about how the FCC is going to sue them for tens of millions of dollars and file federal criminal charges unless they buy some multi-million dollar trunked system.

It makes me sick to read all the absolute crap in these all too common news articles about new radio systems that are allegedly "mandated" by the FCC. If these ignorant fools did an hour's worth of researching the facts, they'd quickly realize that in fact they don't have to "vacate VHF" or any other nonsense, and they could save millions simply by hiring an honest communications outfit to check their current equipment for narrowband capability. Even having to replace a few base transmitters or repeaters isn't going to add up to millions of dollars, and unless they're using 15 year old radios in the field, chances are decent they're already operating with narrowband capable equipment.

So either the consulting companies/manufacturers are using the narrowband deadline fear factor to make an obscene amount of profit using extremely questionable and unsavory tactics, or perhaps just as bad, you've got some radio geek in the local government who is using the same tactics to push his agency into some $40 million 700/800 MHz TRS because "it's awesome, and it's the latest and greatest technology!"

All I can do is sit here and shake my head in disgust at the obscene waste of taxpayer's money, all because of some ignorant fools who are falling for greed tactics.
 

cdknapp

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
115
Location
Rochester, NY
$1.1 million to go to narrow band? It sounds like robbery to me! I have a company that I believe could do this simple job for less than half that, and that even would be a lot.
If anyone from Steuben County reads this, YOU ARE GETTING RIPPED OFF! If you'd like, please PM me.
 

fineshot1

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
2,478
Location
NJ USA (Republic of NJ)
Something to bear in mind is that the reporting quality on these issues is also
less than desirable and usually contains quotes from people who are talking
third hand and ill-informed with little understanding of the technical aspects
of two way radio systems.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,390
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
I agree with all of your observations, but I don't think he's intentionally being deceptive or lying more than parroting what a salesman or consultant told him (probably without consulting Fred). That's probably distorted by an unknowing reporter.

It would have been interesting to find out exactly what the prospective vendor was pushing for them - and what new resources they think they could get in a county that's cut in half by "Line A."
 

N0BDW

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
456
Location
Livingston Co., NY
The most interesting thing about this: Steuben and all surrounding counties use VHF low band (46ish MHz) and as such aren't even required to narrowband. This is a total ripoff. And low band works better for the terrain out here.

I didn't see where it says what system they are going to but whatever it is will hinder communications with surrounding M/A agencies from other counties, who will still be on low band.
 
Last edited:

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,217
Location
Rensselaer, NY
Livingston County fire is on low band. Police agencies are on high band, as are many of the surrounding counties.

Narrowbanding is required for most Livingston County agencies.

Being on low band hinders fire communication with agencies from Genesee and Monroe counties already.
 

N0BDW

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
456
Location
Livingston Co., NY
Genesee and Monroe are pretty far north of Steuben. It is much more likely that they will need to call Allegany, Chemung, Schuyler, Yates, Ontario, and Livingston. All of these counties are on low band for fire (with the possible exception of Yates?). I'm not sure about norther PA, who I would guess they also would have to call... but it wouldn't be on 45.88 anyway I don't think as that is a NYS frequency.

I'm not one of those "you can pry my low band from my cold dead hands" kinda guys, but VHF-low or VHF-high conventional I feel is really the most appropriate for this area for fire. Once you start getting towards the lake it's a different ball game (plus, they have money up there ;)).

UHF? Ha. Fireground simplex? Fine. For dispatch? No thanks. How many towers are you going to have to put up to accomplish anything resembling good coverage (especially at 700/800Mhz)?

I think maybe VHF-high would be a good compromise.
 
Last edited:

radiomanNJ1

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
783
Location
In the land of make believe
Only 1.1 sounds like it is a cheap upgrade. How do you know what they will be doing?
Some of the less scrupulous dealers are pushing MotoTrbo as a way to meet the "mandate"

Low band equipment is not quite available like it was.
 

milf

Careful, I CAN hear you!
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
12,768
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Low band is getting harder and harder to replace/repair with equipment. The comet fell and the dinosaurs are dying. Most of NY is switching to VHF high band, and/or uhf, which has to be narrowband compliant. Add to that that a very large percentage of NY is also now upgrading to P-25 TRS's. Stueben is just jumping onto the bandwagon at the LAST MINUTE to get thier OLD, OLD VHF high band repeaters compliant. True Stueben isn't the richest county by a long shot, but they have known for years the deadline to get gear compliant. Having a tad of inside knowledge of how Stueben County plays politics, (as bad as any Southern Redneck State) its just another game that is being played, and then twisted by the re re repeating of the facts after a good twist. Yes radio sales has become twisted into the fear throwing that the government has taught them to use... But a 1.1 mil price tag to upgrade the whole county is actually truly cheap. If they were going to blow up to say a NexEDGE or TRBO system the price would be a lot higher than 1.1 mil. And even higher if they were going to a real P-25 system. Try along the lines of 20 to 30 mil.
 

msradell

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
161
Location
Louisville, KY
Low band equipment is just getting harder and harder to find because the manufacturers wanted to be! They want to sell the expensive fancy systems instead of basic reliable systems that most rural areas need and want. Communications using Low band are much less spotty in most rural areas and don't require the huge number of transmitter sites that the UHF systems do. There's no reason for areas like this not to stay with systems that are best for them!
 

JRayfield

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
791
Location
Springfield, MO
And some honest dealers are also encouraging agencies to move to MOTOTRBO, as well.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Only 1.1 sounds like it is a cheap upgrade. How do you know what they will be doing?
Some of the less scrupulous dealers are pushing MotoTrbo as a way to meet the "mandate"

Low band equipment is not quite available like it was.
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,217
Location
Rensselaer, NY
Honest? Only if they are not claiming interoperability.

I realized today that my earlier posting centered on Livingston County was a bit OT. The discussion here is about Steuben County. Sorry about that.
 

ts548

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
295
Honest? Only if they are not claiming interoperability.

I realized today that my earlier posting centered on Livingston County was a bit OT. The discussion here is about Steuben County. Sorry about that.
Why can't you get Interoperability from MotoTrbo and a different system? Simple as setting up a different channel and switching to it.
 

milf

Careful, I CAN hear you!
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
12,768
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Because on the digital platform there is only ONE repeat ONE system/format that is recognised by APCO as truly meeting the mandate of interoperability. That is the Project 25 Standard. No matter who else is running an P-25 system, no matter what band, conventional or trunked, P-25 IS P-25. P-25 is NOT compatable with MotoTRBO, NexEDGE, OpenSKY, TETRA, and so on. The whole reason P-25 was developed was to get everyone on the same page so to speak. Now we may as well ALL speak twenty different languages with everyone wanting to be DIFFERENT from everyone else AGAIN! You run on unsecure, and ancient VHF Lo, she runs on TRBO, they run on NXDN.... But thats ok we will just patch, twist, sneak around and patch like we always used to... OK cool go ahead.... When a real disaster hits AGAIN.... I will talk to the real folks that want to help, and want my help on the P-25 system. Anyway that's a whole other topic from the valid point of getting VHF/UHF narrowband compliant...
 

ts548

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
295
Because on the digital platform there is only ONE repeat ONE system/format that is recognised by APCO as truly meeting the mandate of interoperability. That is the Project 25 Standard. No matter who else is running an P-25 system, no matter what band, conventional or trunked, P-25 IS P-25. P-25 is NOT compatable with MotoTRBO, NexEDGE, OpenSKY, TETRA, and so on. The whole reason P-25 was developed was to get everyone on the same page so to speak. Now we may as well ALL speak twenty different languages with everyone wanting to be DIFFERENT from everyone else AGAIN! You run on unsecure, and ancient VHF Lo, she runs on TRBO, they run on NXDN.... But thats ok we will just patch, twist, sneak around and patch like we always used to... OK cool go ahead.... When a real disaster hits AGAIN.... I will talk to the real folks that want to help, and want my help on the P-25 system. Anyway that's a whole other topic from the valid point of getting VHF/UHF narrowband compliant...
Why I understand the Fed's push for P-25 there is nothing stating that you can't have another type system. And just because it isn't P25 doesn't mean you can't create Interoperability between two systems or more. Even with P25 if you are using VHF and the system next to you is using 800 you still have to have a way to patch them together.

The only real way of making it happen is for the Government to say, you will use this band, this system and no ifs, ands and buts about it.
 

JRayfield

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
791
Location
Springfield, MO
Just because two systems are "P25", does not mean that they are interoperable. If one system is a P25 trunked system, and the other is a P25 conventional system, then these systems (and the radios used on each) are NOT interoperable with each other, without some kind of 'bridge' or 'patch' between them.

The idea that any "P25" radio is always interoperable with any other "P25" radio, is simply not true.

John Rayfield, Jr. CETma

Because on the digital platform there is only ONE repeat ONE system/format that is recognised by APCO as truly meeting the mandate of interoperability. That is the Project 25 Standard. No matter who else is running an P-25 system, no matter what band, conventional or trunked, P-25 IS P-25. P-25 is NOT compatable with MotoTRBO, NexEDGE, OpenSKY, TETRA, and so on. The whole reason P-25 was developed was to get everyone on the same page so to speak. Now we may as well ALL speak twenty different languages with everyone wanting to be DIFFERENT from everyone else AGAIN! You run on unsecure, and ancient VHF Lo, she runs on TRBO, they run on NXDN.... But thats ok we will just patch, twist, sneak around and patch like we always used to... OK cool go ahead.... When a real disaster hits AGAIN.... I will talk to the real folks that want to help, and want my help on the P-25 system. Anyway that's a whole other topic from the valid point of getting VHF/UHF narrowband compliant...
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,390
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
I choose not to engage in the DMR part of the discussion, but I do agree that the "dinosaurs" of low band are purely a marketing decision to sell more infrastructure-based solutions rather than discrete components of a conventional system. Do a search of some states and you can see low band licenses in both public safety and business pools have shrunk tremendously from even 20 years ago.

As of right now, Daniels makes a low band base station and Kenwood makes low band mobiles. Extremely solid equipment and every bit as good as the two big manufacturers used to be (emphasis on "used to"). Low band portables suck and don't radiate efficiently. I can see going to VHF or UHF for portables with Pyramid MO3 units for fireground or tactical operations if the UHF trunked systems up there haven't consumed all of the UHF frequencies with FB8 exclusivity.

Low band is certainly feasible and still has great utility. In this age of radiomen dying off and kids from IT running things, low band has become the best kept secret around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top