Just a comment on lowband. It actually works very well in a state like ours and has for many years. The problem we run into is that equipment is going to be harder to find and be supported. Low band can reach places that other frequencies will find difficult. Nothing is perfect, this system was designed in the 40's and is still usable and works well today. The trend is for sharing and using frequencies in an efficient manor. So things change and we move on to bigger and better things.
Jefferson City, MO - State moving ahead with new emergency radio system
- Thread starter Thunderbolt
- Start date
- Status
shelleys1
Member
Hi David,
Thanks for the reply! I actually am receiving Troop C better since the move and attributed it to better equipment and that I'd heard the extenders had been worked on.
No question that nothing is perfect - there is always a weak point, regardless of the band, method, etc. The push is, of course, for interoperability (the continued buzzword) and there does need to be a set of frequencies available/accessible for not only statewide use but also adjoining states, which can be both difficult and sometimes (depending on the involved states) a task which isn't always achieved. But we all continue to work toward the same common goal - safety and better communications. Sounds trite to some but it's far from it!
Hope all's well with you and yours and it's good to see you on this thread!
Shell
K0SHL
Hi Shell, good to see you. You are correct, interoperability is the big reason for the change and it is needed. Glad to know it sounds good you way, did some equipment rebuilding last year to keep the 38year old amplifier operating. Still using the amplifier that was in place in 1972 and another one in 1992 But did some upgrades to the receiver and exciter section before the move last year that made a big difference.
shelleys1
Member
Ah, ok - the work you did on the equipment has definitely made a difference, Dave. And I'm not the only one who has noticed it. I heard a few others a couple of weeks ago in the EOC mention it as well, so, as usual, you're doing a great job!
All the departments should have good, working equipment but MHSP really needs (and I believe deserves!) to have the best they can get. So I hope the new system goes through for them ASAP! Heaven knows they can use it! (And I know you'll certainly enjoy working with it. *smile*)
Shell
K0SHL
iamhere300
Member
The FIRMWARE changes. Absolutley, Tyco would not allow anyone but the Tyco employees and contractors to do. Without a doubt. Updates and changes any Tyco ASC can do however. Much
can be done over the air in fact.
Yes, state radio techs do the programming on their radios, using the manufacturers software in Missouri.
But with a trunking system? Do you really think it would be a good idea for the programming to be completely open for a statewide system? Seems like a recipe for disaster. Remember, each radio has to be authorized in the system, and the programming parameters for such a system would be a tremendous hurdle. Program it wrong, and while it may work fine in Hogsuck MO, it may interfere with the operations in Argyle MO at the other end of the state. So much that could go wrong, it is a far cry from the programming on simple repeaters and mobile systems.
Last I heard, none or just one or two of the MODOT towers were found to be acceptable for the new system. Very few will pass revision G. Many of the towers will be leased towers, and Highway patrol has a number of former AT&T long lines towers, MCI towers, (Donated by a really nice guy) and IXC towers that will be dandy for the new system that they have acquired in the past few years.
Yep - back when this all started to roll, they did a survey of existing VHF channels they could pull from, including many local government agencies that may go on the new system and not need their old channels. Now that it is a system designed for mobiles, I don't know what the availability of those will be. If MODOT and Conservation go on the system, that will free up a number of frequencies, but it is still going to be a big challenge.
iamhere300
Member
Are you sure about this? I have seen nothing like this in the numerous proceedings on narrowbanding. Do you have a cite? I even ran this by an staff APCO engineer and he is not familiar with it, and I suspect if it is a ruling he would know.
V-TAC is certainly being used in Missouri.
And splinter frequencies can be either narrow or wide band, but any new ones licensed must be narrow.
And no splinter should be licensed so close to an existing wideband to be an interference issue, the
shop that does the licensing should catch it if the frequency coordinators do not catch it first.
shelleys1
Member
Am I sure about it? Yes, of course I am. Do I have a cite for it? The FCC is my "cite" for it. And the people here in St. Louis, responsible for radio systems, are quite familiar with it. I have no idea why the people you have asked about it are not.
I was only pointing out that the V-Tac frequency which adjoined the active Hazelwood frequency was not currently active. If/when it were to become active, Hazelwood would most likely be forced to upgrade their equipment to narrowband since they'd probably bleed over.
There is nothing to stop an agency/department from licensing a splinter frequency narrowband adjacent to a wideband frequency. The FCC was quite clear about it. If you wish to query the FCC they'll give you the same information. The compliancy will be the responsibility of the station which bleeds over on the other and, in this instance, it will be the wideband license.
shelleys1
Member
I never said anything about opening up the radio system for EVERYONE to be able to make software changes! And never insinuated it. This is a state-run system, not an "open" system. Obviously, any software and/or hardware changes, additions, deletions, etc. would be handled by the state.
As for the towers - until the specs for the new system are completed, I'm not really sure any of us can predict what existing towers are going to be compliant. It could be that some won't be what they were expecting would have been and that will be problematic in several ways. But we'll just have to wait and see what they design and whether or not it can (literally) be done.
I don't know (or even believe) that this system is going to incorporate other cities or counties or agencies such as MODOT. I do believe that the system will be designed to have the ability/flexibility so that in times of emergency or necessity will allow cities, counties and/or agencies to be able to be linked into the trunked, statewide system. I believe the basis of the system will be MSHP and state agencies such as SEMA and other Jefferson City state offices. Obviously, this is speculation on my part but I also think it makes sense, based on a lot of what I've done and do now. But, as always, who can predict what they'll end up doing? *smile*
Finally, I'm not sure about frequencies except to say that I know they aren't anxious to leave the low band.
Shell
As for the towers - until the specs for the new system are completed, I'm not really sure any of us can predict what existing towers are going to be compliant. It could be that some won't be what they were expecting would have been and that will be problematic in several ways. But we'll just have to wait and see what they design and whether or not it can (literally) be done.
I don't know (or even believe) that this system is going to incorporate other cities or counties or agencies such as MODOT. I do believe that the system will be designed to have the ability/flexibility so that in times of emergency or necessity will allow cities, counties and/or agencies to be able to be linked into the trunked, statewide system. I believe the basis of the system will be MSHP and state agencies such as SEMA and other Jefferson City state offices. Obviously, this is speculation on my part but I also think it makes sense, based on a lot of what I've done and do now. But, as always, who can predict what they'll end up doing? *smile*
Finally, I'm not sure about frequencies except to say that I know they aren't anxious to leave the low band.
Shell
Last edited:
iamhere300
Member
Yeah, there is something to stop it bad licensing, its called good engineering practice. And until 2013, the FCC still maintains a simple interference policy - as long as both systems are licensed properly, it is up the the NEWER license to ensure that they are no interfering with the older licensee, no matter which one is wide band or narrowband. That is the fact. The FCC is quite clear about it. The reason the staff engineers at APCO do not know about your interpetation of the FCC rules is simply because that is not the case.
iamhere300
Member
The specs are complete. The bid was won. The towers used have to meet a specific standard, and most of the MODOT towers do not comply with the standard. Those towers were surveyed quite a while ago.
While I was waiting to see if my testimony was needed during the budget hearings on the system back when Jim Lundsted introduced the plan to the reps, it was specifically set out that it would be available for all those agencies to use as their primary system - the comment was even made that they hoped to make it robust enough so that those other agencies would want to use for their systems.
MODOT and Conservation has not made a formal commitment to using it - but the advantages they will see pretty much ensure they will, unless something drastic happens. At least MODOT. Conservation is always a toss up. MODOT has been involved heavily since the conception of the plan.
Of course, things may change. Especially in state government. By the time the system gets done, we may just end up using our wristwatch based videophones. 29 million is being cut - although not a deathblow, it is certainly a delay.
iamhere300
Member
DOT being on the system is bad ju-ju. SAFE-T is having alot of issues in indiana during winter storms. People are getting busies because dot is taking up the freqs talking about the next coffee stop.
You are right - it sure can be an issue.
Training, and limiting the number of sites that some talkgroups can use, makes a tremendous difference.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Proper use of priorities also goes a long way towards making a large system work well.
talkpair
Member
The patrol has done a great job with their low band.
I've monitored them off and on for over 30 years, and have always enjoyed the laid back car-to-car chit chat on their channels.
In this era where public safety seems to want to lock the public out of overhearing their radio traffic, the highway patrol, to some degree, has had anti-monitor features all along. Their half-duplex operation isn't really understood by casual listeners. With a few exceptions, there have really been no decent all-band scanner antennas that really did the low band justice. This eliminated the frugal enthusiasts. The low-elevation UHF links are difficult to intercept, unless you happen to be in the path, and know the antenna polarization.
Even for the more experienced listener, it presents challenges, merely because of the half-duplex operation.
To get quality results, you need a dedicated radio and antenna on the mobile or relay, as well as a radio on dispatch, as scanners can be handicapped by the scan-delay, link hang-time, or a dispatcher hanging on to the transmitter while the car is transmitting.
Here on the western side of the state, I frequently hear troop A and H asking their cars to repeat transmissions. It's not unusual for troop H to call a county near the Iowa border and ask for them to relay via sheriff's net to a car they are unable to reach.
While I would really miss monitoring the patrol, basic voice communications for them is essential.
I think the time has come to move up.
I've monitored them off and on for over 30 years, and have always enjoyed the laid back car-to-car chit chat on their channels.
In this era where public safety seems to want to lock the public out of overhearing their radio traffic, the highway patrol, to some degree, has had anti-monitor features all along. Their half-duplex operation isn't really understood by casual listeners. With a few exceptions, there have really been no decent all-band scanner antennas that really did the low band justice. This eliminated the frugal enthusiasts. The low-elevation UHF links are difficult to intercept, unless you happen to be in the path, and know the antenna polarization.
Even for the more experienced listener, it presents challenges, merely because of the half-duplex operation.
To get quality results, you need a dedicated radio and antenna on the mobile or relay, as well as a radio on dispatch, as scanners can be handicapped by the scan-delay, link hang-time, or a dispatcher hanging on to the transmitter while the car is transmitting.
Here on the western side of the state, I frequently hear troop A and H asking their cars to repeat transmissions. It's not unusual for troop H to call a county near the Iowa border and ask for them to relay via sheriff's net to a car they are unable to reach.
While I would really miss monitoring the patrol, basic voice communications for them is essential.
I think the time has come to move up.
shelleys1
Member
Hi talkpair,
I agree and have also monitored and enjoyed them for over 30 years - only from the eastern side of the state. *smile* Regardless from what location, it's quite clear our state troopers are professional and a department to be enormously proud of.
Currently I have little doubt there are several locations which can use some work on the existing equipment, similar to what was done on the Troop C, Weldon Spring State equipment this past year. Troop A, Lee Summit, could probably use the same. But with the new statewide system "in planning" I imagine that's what Troop A, along with several others, may/will be waiting for.
But I'm not at all sure they will abandon low band. As the MSHP will tell you, low band has been good for them. Problems they may be experiencing now aren't likely due to the band, it's aging equipment as shown in the work done on Troop C's equipment this past year. Interoperability will be the focus, of course, in the new statewide system but that doesn't necessarily mean a band change. We'll have to wait and see what they do come up with and, as said, I'm really not sure it will mean they will move to a new band. Regardless, it will be very interesting to see their solution - how the new system will be laid out and how seamless the interoperable capabilities will be.
Shell
K0SHL
P.S. You bring up something which I think is important. One of the things which is key on the eastern side of the state and I know is the same on the western side is that the "metropolitan area" crosses state boundries. It will be very important for cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City (and other cities/counties in the state) to focus on how our statewide system will address this situation. In Kansas City there are times when Kansas City, Kansas may need to participate on the Missouri statewide system. In St. Louis, there are times when East St. Louis, Belleville, Granite City, and several other Illinois cities, may need to participate in the Missouri statewide system. When you mentioned that counties near the Iowa border needed to relay messages via Sheriff's net, it reminded me that there are several areas in Missouri which often work closely with adjoining cities across state lines. This will be something Missouri will need to incorporate into their planning.
Last edited:
shelleys1
Member
Yes, it does! But the hardest part is making the important "short list" of what the key priorities really are. Unfortunately, and too often when we see failed systems, the list of so-called priorities ends up being entirely too long, thus focus is erratic and inconsistent. I believe the "proper use of priorities" is one of the hardest things in the entire planning process and it is most often the one thing, when a system fails, which was not done correctly.
Question is, how can this be avoided? Personally, I believe the state government should include more people who are NOT part of state government! Successful business men and women who understand what makes a system work and not work. If you step back and objectively look at it, a state essentially has a structure and should run much like a large business/corporation does. Problem is, I haven't seen many states run like a corporation - it's been more a mish-mash! I've always hoped that governors and higher state officials would push aside their politics and tap into the plethora of brilliant business man and women in their states who could offer their expertise and help. I know, it sounds like I'm dreaming and maybe I am, but I never have understood why our states haven't taken advantage of the incredible resources they have - most of which are men and women who want their states to be in considerably better shape than they're in right now.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent like that!)
Shell
K0SHL
N
N_Jay
Guest
The basic problem is a business is (or should be) an enterprise, and government by its nature is a bureaucracy.
While everyone acknowledges that enterprises are much more efficient than bureaucracies, (Except for some politicians, but that is a different thread) it is almost impossible to get any governmental entity to operate that way.
Enough for Organizational Behaviour-432: Tues/Thurs 2:00-3:30p Sharp Hall 211
Yes, implementing an effective priority system is difficult, because you have to separate political importance from operational importance.
What is more important is instilling a culture where the radio system is understood to be a limited resource at all times, and minimize idle chit-chat even during slow periods, so those conversations (and bad habits) won't impact critical times.
While everyone acknowledges that enterprises are much more efficient than bureaucracies, (Except for some politicians, but that is a different thread) it is almost impossible to get any governmental entity to operate that way.
Enough for Organizational Behaviour-432: Tues/Thurs 2:00-3:30p Sharp Hall 211
Yes, implementing an effective priority system is difficult, because you have to separate political importance from operational importance.
What is more important is instilling a culture where the radio system is understood to be a limited resource at all times, and minimize idle chit-chat even during slow periods, so those conversations (and bad habits) won't impact critical times.
shelleys1
Member
(Starting from back to front...)
The success or failure of a system essentially lies with the strength of the "build" of the program and then the implentation - on which, obviously, you and I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that there hasn't been enough of a push by the people or even (heaven forbid) the politicians to take a different approach to how our state-level government is handled (much less our country. But that's a whole differerent, huge can of worms!) Yes, of course I understand it's a bureaucracy. But my point is that it isn't working and there needs to be modification, shall we say a "hybrid" of the bureaucracy. Maybe not so much an enterprise but an input which is actually used, from people within corporate environments who know and understand how things work better, to help find solutions. There are ALWAYS different methods to make things work better - even within a bureaucracy.
Certainly I'm looking at this as if politicians would/could change. The odds of that are realistically slim. But enough pressure (meaning a LOT) from the people could bring about change. The biggest, and most common problem we consistently see is apathy. The people simply don't care enough to do anything about the problems which exist. If we can find a way to change that, I do believe there's a chance to change the way government operates. (Now if we can only find "that way"!)
Shell
K0SHL
iamhere300
Member
Exactly. The priority access for a MODOT crew should not be the same level or higher as the priority access for a trooper, or a Fire Department, etc.
If Public Safety starts getting busies - then its time to figure out why, possibly add capacity at the sites affected, and to look at some temporary solutions till that capacity can be added, like limiting some of the sites bandwidth to public safety only, making the other users limit their traffic (always a good idea)
But I suspect you know that... Grin
kpoe_28
Member
Does anyone have any updates or new information on the emergency radio system?
Kevin
Kevin
- Status
Similar threads
