• 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

NYSP adding repeat functionality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
790
Location
Greene County New Yawk
#1
New York State Police VHF Radio System Zone Repeat Plan
Justification for an Extended Implementation Period
Pursuant to 47CFR§90.629 New York
State Police respectfully request extended implementation
period of five (5) years for constructing and placing our proposed repeated system in operation.
The New York State Police currently operates an analog half-duplex VHF band Land Mobile
Radio System for use by State Police, as well certain State and municipal law enforcement
partner agencies. The State Police radio system covers approximately 50,000 square miles of
often rural and mountainous terrain. Roughly 9,300 square miles, or twenty percent of this
territory fall within the Adirondack Park. State Police intends to add repeat functionality to one channel in each of its 27 Zones. Due to the size and terrain, as well as licensing considerations, it is anticipated that many zones will require
multiple sites to provide coverage. The Adirondack Park is a unique mountainous area.
Much of this area is pristine wilderness, protected against development by
Article XIV, the “forever wild” provisions of the New York State Constitution. New York State Police curren
tly maintains approximately 112 radio sites to support this radio system. Development with
the Adirondack Park are subject to special environmental reviews require ad
ditional time to complete. State Police is currently developing a prototype build in Troop B, comprised of St. Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton, Essex Counties, as well as portions of Hamilton County, portions of which fall inside the Adirondack Park. Following completion of this prototype, which provided adequate
funding is secured, should be completed in 2017, State Police will be better able to estimate the
funding and time required for a State-wide deployment of repeater sites. State Police currently anticipate
s requiring roughly 49 new base stations (at current State Police Radio sites), installed at the rate of 10 per year, after the prototype build in Troop B. With system completion expected in June 2021. Below is the proposed implementation schedule.
Troop No. of base stations Implementation Start Date Implementation End Date
Prototype Build in Troop B 7 Apr-16 Jun-17
Troop F 4 Jan-17 Jun-18
Troop C 8 Sep-17 Dec-18
Troop K 4 Jun-18 Jun-19
Troop D 6 Jul-18 Dec-19
Troop A 6 Sep-18 May-19
Troop E 5 Jan-20 Jul-20
Troop L 3 Apr-20 Jan-21
Troop G 6 Apr-18 Jun-21
 

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
6,824
Location
BEE00
#3
The copy/paste destroyed the formatting, making it very tough to read. I've attached the actual PDF document for easier reading.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
790
Location
Greene County New Yawk
#4
Will be interesting to follow.....if they dont add too many new sites up north will go a tad smoother...on another note they have applied for 158.8275 as a FB2 in the Delaware county area.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
2,985
Location
Fortified Bunker
#5
Troop F has repeater capability on Schunnemunk in Orange County and Jackie Jones in Rockland County. Different input PL. I remember when they were testing it I could hear mobiles down in NJ loud and clear.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,696
Location
New York North Carolina and all points in between
#6
The state passed the “forever wild” not the locals so they can amend if necessary. This is the same type of B.S. that happened for cell towers in the park. All it meant was more and lower towers, and I wonder how Cuomo plans on paying for it, another tax or fee on something?

"Local resistance" won 't mean a thing against public safety. The idiots that live in Westchester County tried unsucessfully to prevent a tower from being replaced at the Grasslands Reservation in Vahalla years ago. The tower had reached it's end of life a decade earlier, was over loaded and was in fact ready to fall down.
They tried to stop construction of the new tower complaining of esthetics. the tower had been on County property for over 50 years. Long before any of the complainers were born.

I have to wonder what their mindset is for making their stations repeaters. Most stations don't cover an entire zone, the only advantage might be all the others on the channel can hear the mobiles calling in. On the other hand if they have to make multiple sites repeat ( not in the proposal at this time) that could cause an interference problem.

I guess they have to do something after the loss of SWIN and the 800 mhz allocations.
 
Last edited:

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,122
Location
Rensselaer, NY
#7
I wonder why they are starting with the most difficult part of the state. If I were the FCC, I would be more sympathetic to a request for an extension if they could show that they had built most of the system already and just needed more time in one particular area.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,385
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
#8
Pursuant to 47CFR§90.629 (snip)
This should probably be dismissed without prejudice as written. Subpart S has no relevance to VHF operation and the petitioner is seeking an extension for a Rule that does not pertain to the situation.

What I would have cited is Section 1.946(e).
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
830
#10
This ought to work quite well for NY. Georgia completed their upgrade of the analog VHF hi-band two frequency simplex system that has been around since the 1970's. Sites have been upgraded to P25 repeaters, with additional sites installed to fill in coverage gaps in the mountainous regions. The digital voice coverage using 155mhz is amazing, not to mention troopers can now hear other troopers radio traffic directly, which has already proven beneficial in a number of circumstances.
BG..
 

N2MWE

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,435
Location
People's Republic of New York
#11
The state passed the “forever wild” not the locals so they can amend if necessary. This is the same type of B.S. that happened for cell towers in the park. All it meant was more and lower towers, and I wonder how Cuomo plans on paying for it, another tax or fee on something?

"Local resistance" won 't mean a thing against public safety. The idiots that live in Westchester County tried unsucessfully to prevent a tower from being replaced at the Grasslands Reservation in Vahalla years ago. The tower had reached it's end of life a decade earlier, was over loaded and was in fact ready to fall down.
They tried to stop construction of the new tower complaining of esthetics. the tower had been on County property for over 50 years. Long before any of the complainers were born.

I have to wonder what their mindset is for making their stations repeaters. Most stations don't cover an entire zone, the only advantage might be all the others on the channel can hear the mobiles calling in. On the other hand if they have to make multiple sites repeat ( not in the proposal at this time) that could cause an interference problem.

I guess they have to do something after the loss of SWIN and the 800 mhz allocations.
Just FYI...New York CANNOT amend it...it is in the NYS Constitution. It would have to go for a vote. Guess what happens when people find out how much this one will cost?
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,122
Location
Rensselaer, NY
#12
The NYS Constitution can be amended. Amendments are proposed all the time. Not many of them get very far, but that is politics, not law.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
1,038
Location
Central New York
#13
I've always wondered why they've continued to use this system.

I can't tell you how many times a day/night I've heard several different troop bases saying to "repeat transmissions"... "try another tower"... "you were covered"... "try state frequency" etc. A lot of the times it's been the same transmission being tried several times.

And the point of other troopers not being able to hear each other on one frequency has always puzzled me. Seems counterintuitive. Never understood it. Especially considering that the DEC/Rangers have a repeater system that seems to work fine.

I'm sure there's a lot of technical, perhaps logistical, things I'm unaware of but from a common sense aspect I'm not sure where I would be wrong...
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,385
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
#14
I've always wondered why they've continued to use this system.

I can't tell you how many times a day/night I've heard several different troop bases saying to "repeat transmissions"... "try another tower"... "you were covered"... "try state frequency" etc. A lot of the times it's been the same transmission being tried several times.

And the point of other troopers not being able to hear each other on one frequency has always puzzled me. Seems counterintuitive. Never understood it. Especially considering that the DEC/Rangers have a repeater system that seems to work fine.

I'm sure there's a lot of technical, perhaps logistical, things I'm unaware of but from a common sense aspect I'm not sure where I would be wrong...
That's a common issue. I had it in several places I used to work, like in NYC - PD has an excellent system. EMS' system at the time had a few voting receivers, but had a lot of trouble hearing and being heard especially in Manhattan when the dispatchers had one transmitter selected over another and didn't realize it. If we (as EMS) needed help, we'd have a better shot of getting out by calling for it over Division radio when it was allowed. Legacy systems are built out to individual departments' resources. Sometimes there might be money and no frequencies. Sometimes it's the other way around. Another example, in an old job with old systems, Animal control had their own VHF repeater. It was used relatively little, all things considered. A whole bunch of other departments needed radio coverage, but didn't have the resources. I added a community repeater tone panel to the animal control repeater and allowed other non-emergency departments to have their own tone or CDCSS slots, especially after hours when the original user would not be working and the resource lay fallow.

Homogeneous systems share coverage and infrastructure. It was one of the big selling points of trunked radio systems. I'm sure that once this nationwide broadband stuff takes off and starts getting built out, uniformity of coverage will be a marketing technique they use.

The other issue seems to be how highway patrols build their radio systems. I've seen this on high band, like NY and PA, and low band, like MO and CA. Many other states, I'm sure - There is a base station talk-out and a mobile talk-in, but they are not repeated. I was told by some Missouri guys that this was so the dispatcher could transmit, but mobiles, regardless of where they were, could break in. The way they used to do it before they went trunked was that each receiver had its own speaker and was not voted or repeated. That's called semi-duplex. This way if two cars a hundred miles away from each other both keyed up at the same time, the dispatcher could hear both and make a decision who had a more urgent message. Mobiles talking to each other would switch to simplex on the dispatcher's talk-out frequency to communicate so they didn't miss any traffic intended for them if dispatch called.
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,122
Location
Rensselaer, NY
#15
When I was a teenager growing up near Rochester, the Monroe County Sheriff was dead set against repeaters. The dispatchers were allowed to switch the repeater on for limited periods of time under specific conditions. If they left it on for too long, Sheriff Skinner would come on the air and tell them to "turn off that bloody 3-way!"

There are probably similar historic (and personality) reasons behind NYSP's slow adoption of modern communications technology.
 

popnokick

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
1,867
Location
Northeast PA
#16
In a half-duplex system such as NYSP you'll never hear, "Open mike... check your mikes. There's an open mike on the channel." No mobile can lock up the repeater, nor block the dispatcher from being heard. No mobile can ever "talk over" dispatch or any other mobile.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,385
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
#17
In a half-duplex system such as NYSP you'll never hear, "Open mike... check your mikes. There's an open mike on the channel." No mobile can lock up the repeater, nor block the dispatcher from being heard. No mobile can ever "talk over" dispatch or any other mobile.
There are two differing schools of thought on that one.

There are many times that a field unit has a much more urgent message than what's being transmitted by dispatch, especially in a rapidly changing situation. That was the thing that impressed me the most about NYC's PD systems - the dispatcher can "cut in" but the mobiles can interrupt them whenever it's necessary. I've worked on many systems around the country and it's very unique - and kinda sad, too, that more administrators don't think the field guys need immediate access.

The big problem with "console priority" cards in voting comparators, especially, is that if the console gets stuck for whatever reason (it's happened!), the base or repeater will time-out and NOTHING can access the system. There have also been prominent incidents where units have attempted to make distress calls while dispatch was keyed, and they were not immediately heard.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,385
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
#18
When I was a teenager growing up near Rochester, the Monroe County Sheriff was dead set against repeaters. The dispatchers were allowed to switch the repeater on for limited periods of time under specific conditions. If they left it on for too long, Sheriff Skinner would come on the air and tell them to "turn off that bloody 3-way!"

There are probably similar historic (and personality) reasons behind NYSP's slow adoption of modern communications technology.
Ya know, I heard a similar story out of Harry Marnell about Los Angeles' PD's former chief and the semi-duplex system that was used circa "Adam-12."
 

Ishmole

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Walden, NY
#19
This is great news. I have been monitoring NYSP Troop F for years, even when they were on 42.14, then the base moved to 155.475, then finally 155.535. Has anyone else noticed that the amount of air traffic has fallen considerably? I remember monitoring 155.535 and hearing KIngston, Newburgh (now Montgomery),Monroe, & Palisades (now Haverstraw) almost constantly. They used to cut each other off!
I realize that Haverstraw mostly uses Rockland Counties Phase 2 system, but what of the others?
Is there less traffic due to many of the towns now having their own dispatch and Orange 911, or have they made changes in the way the system is set up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top