• 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

Cheyenne Police?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Will Cheyenne Police be moving to Wyolink eventually and shutting down their old analog system? It seems everyone else in Laramie County is digital already. Thanks! :)
 

wyomingmedic

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
463
I know things are in the works, but I doubt we will see it any time soon. IMO, maybe next year. . . . . Maybe.


WM
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
All of Laramie County is analog... Some other counties have migrated fully or partially... but as stated, figure 3-4000 per radio..gets expensive. I'd imagine that you would see SO and PD switch at the same time due to their daily interaction.
 

wyomingmedic

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
463
The SO has a few APX7000s that they are testing. But as was said, I think the prices are overwhelmingly daunting.

WM
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
Well, lemme add this as I thought about it.

The XTS line is now marketed as a mid-high tier line since the APX line was released. The XTS/XTL2500 will work perfectly well without the expense of going to the APX7000/7500 line, even if the APX is ordered as single band, or just ordering the APX6000/6500 (single band model).

However this comes into play: Is there a benefit having the expense of going to the VHF/800 APX7x line to take advantage of the Cheyenne 800 site? CPD, I could see as it will keep some loading off of the VHF system. SO? Maybe. Primary function is outside of the city (where 800 does actually propage will around here) and is there a need for the SO to talk directly with Colorado on the DTRS system?

Now with question 2, there is a link between the CO and WY system but it is rarely used, so then again, is there a need for the SO to spend money on the dual band radio when the gateway link could be used if really needed.

To throw another wrench in, they do not need to be Motorola radios... The Thales Liberty and the Harris Unity have been sucessfully tested and I believe the Kenwood P25 radios have also been suscessfully tested. The advantage of going with the Motorola XTS/XTL line is at least on the portable side, all the MT/MTS/XTS accessories can be reused though I belive the SO is using Otto speaker mics anyways.

Just throwing that out there. I can dig up approx prices, but will take me a bit.
 

wyomingmedic

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
463
All of my sources are telling me that the XTS/XTL line is considered at the end of it's life in 2ish years. While support will continue, it will become impossible to buy new.

The other issue is the NEXT narrow banding session that is rumored to take place by 2020. While that is a ways away, the APX line can handle the next shift as well as potential TDMA migration. This coincides with the end of the Quantar line and the transition to the GTX8000 and the upgrade to version 7.4 or whatever it is.

And I do agree about getting away from Moto. I work with them every day and while I like them, I think they are grossly over priced. However, they do work great. The Kenwood line has serious issues with multi site trunking and the handoff between towers. The liberty and the new BK Kng will work just fine.

What has happened in Cheyenne is sadly too late. A lot of the incentives to switch to WyoLink have dried up. And most of the trade in deals with Moto have expired as well. I'm sure they will get there eventually, but it will take some time.
 

N0WRE

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
0
Location
Cheyenne WY
There have been several incidents in which the fire district 1 has had to be in contact with Colorado for calls and there is no radio system interconnect from WYOLink and DTRS, the APX VHF/800 would solve this problem as well as the City 800/WYOLink VHF problem for interoperability. I have heard rumor that EMA might be testing a few APX radios.
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
Actually there is a link however I am not sure how obvious it is or who has access to the resource. Last I heard it wad seldom used.
 

N0WRE

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
0
Location
Cheyenne WY
According to the WYOLink trainer that we went through the class there is not a link, nor did I see one in the radio table that we got from the class as well as the dispatch center does not know of the link as their director was also in this class and questioned and he said no. So either the link is not publicised or someone forgot to inform the trainer and director of this small fact.
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
According to the CO and WY guys I met at IWCE last year, there is.

I also offer up this snippet from a recent article:

Motorola Highlights Managed ISSI Services (8/2/10)
The Enterprise Mobility Solutions business of Motorola announced the Motorola Managed Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) Service solution at the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International conference.

The Managed ISSI service eases system implementation by operating the interoperability network and coordinating with each agency system on the network, company officials said. Motorola also manages all talkgroup mapping and provisioning between agencies, allowing agencies to focus on their objectives.

“With our advanced interoperability solutions, such as Managed ISSI service, we are well positioned to help agencies around the globe connect disparate radio systems so they can optimize their emergency response,” said Jim Connor, director, Motorola.

To ensure the service could connect Project 25 (P25) trunked systems over a large geographical area, Motorola conducted a trial in Texas last fall. Four IP-based P25 trunked systems operating on multiple frequency bands in Austin, Laredo, Harris County and Parker County, Texas, were connected to Motorola’s network operations center (NOC) in Illinois by ISSI prototype gateways to provide interoperable talkgroups that would allow Texas first responders and their commanders to be in direct radio contact. As a result, 70 users from 25 different agencies were able to roam freely and communicate seamlessly with each other while remaining in radio contact with their home dispatchers.

The ISSI service also provided interoperability on the highway along the border of Colorado and Wyoming for multiagency and multijurisdictional response to wildland fires and weather-related incidents. The states conducted an ISSI interoperability test this summer between the border agencies and counties.

“This ISSI interoperability project has provided an opportunity to enhance communications between city, county and state agencies, which has bridged an important gap that up until now had never been addressed,” said Lynnette Stieb-Sorensen, regional communication manager, Colorado State Patrol. “Whether it be police, fire, EMS or Department of Transportation, all agencies now have the ability to communicate not only across county lines, but state lines as well.”
 

N0WRE

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
0
Location
Cheyenne WY
Well we will see for sure, I emailed Martin McCoy who is in charge of WYOLink and get an answer for certain
 

N0WRE

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
0
Location
Cheyenne WY
Ok answer from Marty:
Peter;

This connectivity is not available as a talkgroup on mobile or portable radios. Currently it's only available to the WHP and WYDOT TMC dispatch centers.

--Marty

So the link IS active but NOT available to just the average everyday user, which would explain why neither Lew nor Glen knew about it. My guess as more WYOLink agencies that need it (IE fire districts) that cover mutual aid calls into Colorado it would be used and available to them. Combined Communications (Laramie county) is still testing different departments but no move to go all WYOLink as of yet. I will post more as it develops.
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
Through Centracom GE and the MCC consoles the patch/link is pretty easy. In a former life I did the same thing that tied in three different states, one major city and a couple of the Federal I/O channels. During a certain incident, we had three talkgroups on our system patched into 1 on other system, 2 on system #3 with a part time link on a VTAC channel. Took about 2 mins to setup.

Not having seen the WyoLink setup, but going on from what I know, it could work the same way. Just depends on how the backend is setup and what resources are made available.

But, in dealing with this stuff as a living for awhile, the simplest thing to do it buy a cheap radio for the other department at $200 and work conventional analog with the command staff. At most major incidents that I have worked, thats all what is needed. You don't need twenty crews all on the same channel/talkgroup to get things done. This was especially fun when you were mixing a digtial TRS, UHF conventional, VHF conventional digital and a lowband user all into the mix. That was a fun night, but worked out well.

In this day in age, there is no reason mutual aid departments cannot have a preplanned comm plan. You don't need millions of dollars. You need a good table, coffee and some lunch and 4 hours to work out most of the logistics :) Been there, done that. Works 99% of the time!
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
And to expand on your specific example...

A full time link is also not warranted unless running often...and by that I mean daily. No need to tie up resources on the system for routine calls. Most systems are setup this way, or provide for intrasystem mutual aid groups within it (which both systems have).

History shows that once you start giving users too many options, they tend to be misused. Emergency service talkgroups are typically given the top tier for system access and there is no reason to bump off DOT trying to open a road while Chief Bob is having a 30min conversation with Chief Dale asking about the weather on the other side of the district line (it happens, trust me).

Adding frequency capacity is expensive (~$15to$20,000) just for a Quantar last I looked. You might have 16 talkgroups in your radio, but your local site most likely can't handle more than 6 active talkgroups at a time without bumping someone off.

And since I am ranting..... there is no need in most tactical situations to be on a repeater/trunking system most of the time. People have tended to forget that simplex exists and really is a good thing. Far too many times I have heard responders have 5min conversations trying to get into the repeater and complaning about it when they could go direct or to a tactcal channel when they are a 1000ft or less from each other. Back to basics!

Ok, done with the rant for now :)
 

N0WRE

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
0
Location
Cheyenne WY
WYOLink is set up to use Mutual Aid Tactical (MAT) and County Aid Tactical (CAT) channels depending on the incident. That way the main Dispatch channel is not tied up in the event of a large scale emergency. We have the same thing with several conventional Tac channels that can be used for fire-ground and the like. Wyoming is SLOWLY converting over to WYOLink but Wyoming Highway Patrol and WYDOT are using it exclusively as of right now. Some agencies are testing like AMR but most of the time coverage in the city areas like downtown that have several agencies ALL on the same roof as far as repeaters go create enough RFI that its almost impossible to get a clear channel. We tested the system on base and while I could see the tower I had to stand in the right spot ad hold my radio up in the air with a speaker mic only to get a signal without an error tone. They have built towers to cover more and more but the Air Force base has some sort of communications system that plays havoc with WYOLink which I have heard its their missile communications system but I cant verify that information.

Long story short there is a plan in place to take traffic off the main dispatch channels but in the end its still using bandwidth for MAT or CAT. And dragging repeaters is yet another problem we face as the system is not set up to drop one tower and pick up another when you move beyond the one site. This also ties up bandwidth for someone with a radio traveling around the state that never turn s the radio off. I guess in time they will get this fixed but it took the Colorado DRTS system quite a while to solve these problems that Wyoming is facing right now.

Sorry for the long post.
 

PJH

Global Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,478
Might be some terminology/system things I am reading into, but I'll try to work though it.

The WyoLink system (like DTRS or any other APCO25/SmartZone/WAC systems) do have tower handoff's. If the subscriber radio is programmed correctly to the approved system template, it will switch to a better tower depending on RSSI just as a cellphone does. Is it possible that the radio could think that the tower its on is better than another falsely? Sure, but its not the norm. Worse case is that you can add a softkey or button to have the radio perform a site search and it will affliate to another site.

True, some people will travel statewide and keep one channel only on the radio, but thats how these systems are setup (and its a benefit factor on why they are bought). However, when you have areas of limited capacity or it becomes abused there are parameters that can be setup to restrict talkgroups or radios to certain geographical areas. This is called tresspassing and is setup in the zone controller(s).

For instance, a Green River PD car travels to Cheyenne. No one wants to hear or really have a need to have GPD in Cheyenne. The talkgroup could be set to no longer affiate to towers say..past Rawlins (depending on how the zones are setup). Now obviously we don't want to have the officer out of communications, so he can switch to a statewide or regional channel that everyone has access too for "calling" purposes. Since typically these channels are setup (not always) to be live 24/7, your not taxing resources. Again, it will only be active on towers that a radio is actually affiliated to.This was a widely used feature even back when SmartZone was developed. With the advent of everyone having a cellphone these days, not as much.

Warren operates an APCO25 system on base, and there is also a remote site out there, but not sure where. With the latest upgrades, there is a wireless system in the missle fields for data/video and other stuff that was installed by Boeing. My guess is that it operates in the 220-400 specturm and not the LMR federal specturm just due to the bandwidth requirements alone (Colorado and even Wyoming uses quite a bit of the VHF FedLMR so it would be counter productive). Just the fact being on a military base itself has all sorts of cool RF goodies from HF to Satcom. Although NITA tries to keep a good handle on some aspects of MilLMR stateside, doesn't always work :) You don't want to see what a good friend of mine in the DC area goes thru with all the coordnation that happens down there.

As far as the RFI comment, thats purley from an engineering standpoint of the site. I could show you towers of death with all sorts of comms on it and never presented a problem in system design for users to get in/out of. If your nor properly filtering or using properly matched combiners, then the site can desense itself to the outside world - more so inband than multiband.

I had the same problem when our contract company decided to put all the TX antennas on the same level at a site. When one repeater was operating, and other was keyed up you could hear the desense (no crosstalk, just a low level buzz/hum). Getting them back out and properly placing the antennas and find tuning the cominbers solved that. These were with 100 watt repeaters that were also properly turned down to a resonable level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top