York County: More Open Sky?

[brey1234]

York County is pursuing a $2.5 million grant to defray the cost of its new 911 radio system and improve communication with state agencies and other counties.
The county is upgrading its radio system in part to avoid the communication problems that plagued emergency responders during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In that case, agencies such as the fire department and police were unable to communicate with each other using their respective handheld radios.
The same problem exists in York County. Responders must use different equipment, communicate through the county's 911 center or through face-to-face meetings.
The new radio system will address that difficulty by allowing agencies to use new handheld radios to communicate with each other, said Rob Sterner, project director.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_6882340

 

[Mattsenft]

I don't quite know if you are asking this in your post Bob, but the York County system is a MA/COM P25 compliant system. It is definitely not OpenSky.

 

[brey1234]

Matt:


The article references Charles Brennan who is the connected with the states Open Sky project. He talks about York Countys applcation being studied. I read that as York County wants to piggyback onto the state system

 

[Mattsenft]

That article looks like it is mostly about funding. According to York County on their website they acknowledge it is a P25 system. http://www.ycdes.org/html/towersites.html

 

[ctrabs74]

Bob -

Refer to these threads RE: York County:

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80424

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78557

You will notice that they are starting to test the system on one site...

 

[ocguard]

York County's new TRS was on the air for the week of the York Fair from the West Manchester site. I was out of town and didn't get a chance to listen in.

It's NOT OpenSky.

Perhaps "piggyback" the state system refers to charing of tower sites; York County's system utilizes the new state towers in Shrewsbury and Gatchellville. Or perhaps it refers to the ability to patch the systems together when needed.

Whatever pessimism exists about M/A-Com over OpenSky, I can assure you that the York County system will preform beyond everyone's expectations.

 

[ctrabs74]

Whatever pessimism exists about M/A-Com over OpenSky, I can assure you that the York County system will preform beyond everyone's expectations.

As long as it's monitorable, then I think that'll be the big thing...

 

[HM1529]

Matt:


The article references Charles Brennan who is the connected with the states Open Sky project. He talks about York Countys applcation being studied. I read that as York County wants to piggyback onto the state system

You misread the article, then. Brennan is the reviewing officer for applications from local entities in PA who are applying for a portion of federal funding that will be disbursed to the state. York was one of the entities applying for some of the funding.

 

[ocguard]

As long as it's monitorable, then I think that'll be the big thing...

So long as people are willing to dish out the money for a digital scanner, monitoring shouldn't be an issue.

 

[HM1529]

So long as people are willing to dish out the money for a digital scanner, monitoring shouldn't be an issue.

We know the audio can be decoded...but can the system be tracked accurately?

 

[ctrabs74]

We know the audio can be decoded...but can the system be tracked accurately?

I would suspect if it were a scanner capable of monitoring 9600-baud P25 systems, then I think the answer would be yes. I can't speak to the RS Pro-96/2096, though...

I'm able to track the PECO P25 system on my 396 (though all I get is ENC xmits; it's programmed just so I can say that the system works); I suspect that if it's the same platform for the MA/COM P25 product as it is for the Moto P25, then York can be monitored.

 

[PAFF1952]

Perhaps "piggyback" the state system refers to charing of tower sites; York County's system utilizes the new state towers in Shrewsbury and Gatchellville. Or perhaps it refers to the ability to patch the systems together when needed.

$2.5 MILLION: County seeks radio grantDaily Record/Sunday News
York Daily Record/Sunday NewsArticle Launched:09/18/2007 07:10:16 AM EDTSep 18, 2007 — York County officials plan to apply for a $2.5 million state grant for the new public safety radio network.
Part of that money would go to offset the costs the county will incur with the 911 system upgrade, which will allow the county to communicate with neighboring counties, Pennsylvania State Police and others, 911 project director Rob Sterner said. The extra money would be used for additional improvements, such as for a VHF/UHF gateway that would allow federal agencies to communicate with the county using their own equipment, Sterner said. Even if the gateway isn't obtained, the county would be able to communicate with federal officials if they reported to York County.

 

[brey1234]

Info From York Co 911 Director

I find it interesting that there is no more room for piggyback.
Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: WORKSNTV@aol.com <WORKSNTV@aol.com>
To: Rychalsky, Audrey R.
CC: Bragg, Robert L.; WORKSNTV@aol.com <WORKSNTV@aol.com>
Sent: Sun Sep 16 15:13:52 2007
Subject: a question

Audrey:

As a ham radio operator I recently spotted an article concerning York
County's radio system.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_6882340

I understand the system will be in the 500 Mhz range. As you know the state
has been marketing it's 800 Mhz Open Sky system where agencies can piggyback
on.

May I ask if the state system was considered and if so why did you folks
decide to go with another design. Did it have anything to do with the fact that
the state system was supposed to be completely online in 2001 and the costs
have risen to twice what the state had projected?

 

[brey1234]

a reply from 911 director

Bob,

There are no 800 frequencies left in the spectrum, and we were able to
procure frequencies in the 500 band. Additionally, the EDACS system is a proven
system, with a long and successful track record. Given the terrain of York
County, and the positive history of the EDACS system, we felt it was a better fit
for the County.
The state system does not have the capacity for us to piggy back on the 800
Open Sky system, so it was not a consideration.

Please feel free to give me a call if you have additional questions at
717-840-2906.

Audrey

 

[PCPA]

Bob, to add to Audrey's comment about terrain; the 800mhz PA system is only going to provide 80% coverage for MOBILES...no one is even daring to predict what the portable coverage will be.

IMHO that is totally unacceptable for public safety systems.

 

[ocguard]

Despite the fact that Audrey is the operations director for the York County 911 Center, she doesn't quite have her facts straight. She mentions EDACS numerous times; let me assure you that York County's system is NOT EDACS. It is M/A-Com's P25ip. This type of system is true P25 Phase I FDMA, with 9600bps control channels, exclusive CAI RF, NOT EDACS, NOT OPENSKY. http://www.macom-wireless.com/macom_prodnews.asp?ID=931
http://www.macom-wireless.com/products/p25/Default.asp

Complete system information is available at the York County, PA page in the RRDB, and that information is accurate.

And, Bob, as far as there being "no more room for piggybacking," the state's system was never designed to be shared with county and municipal level users. It's capacity is designed for state agency operations and emergency management. Most of the tower sites only have two channels, which, although my knowledge of TDMA is sketchy, only allows for 8 conversations (4 per channel, times two channels) at each site.

And PA's OpenSky project has been a disaster from the get-go, so why would York County want to put their hands into it? They'll still be able to have interoperability with the State and surrounding counties -- just to be inter-operable doesn't mean that you have to have the same types of systems. There are numerous networking and patching devices on the market that can successfully connect any type of communications system to another.

Lastly, I don't want to sound aggravated (although I somewhat am), this is not a new topic. You act as though this is new information. York County has been developing this 500mhz system for over three years now. There are numerous other threads about it within this forum.

 

[brey1234]

piggybacking

In the orginial news release: the state was "selling" the Open Sky system because it could be used by local/regional agencies...
See:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/porta...oa_portal/radio/files/access_request_proc.pdf

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/porta...ortal/radio/files/overview_and_fact_sheet.pdf

 

[Mattsenft]

York on the air

I drove through York on I-83 this afternoon and picked up a control channel. The ID I got on my 996 was 37h12. The control channel was on 500.3125 and had very poor signal to 83(less than one bar most of the time). I am guessing it is the test site at the West Manchester tower site.

 

[ocguard]

I drove through York on I-83 this afternoon and picked up a control channel. The ID I got on my 996 was 37h12. The control channel was on 500.3125 and had very poor signal to 83(less than one bar most of the time). I am guessing it is the test site at the West Manchester tower site.

Got a chance to get my hands on a portable from the York County 911 command bus. It keys up the West Manchester site, which, per staff members there, is online for good.

I too find signal strength to be very weak east of I83 - but got closer to the West Man tower, and get great control channel signal. Also decoding a sysid of 37h12.

 

[HM1529]

Bob, to add to Audrey's comment about terrain; the 800mhz PA system is only going to provide 80% coverage for MOBILES...no one is even daring to predict what the portable coverage will be.

IMHO that is totally unacceptable for public safety systems.

Where are you getting your 80% number for mobile coverage? Everything I've seen has said 95% mobile coverage per county. Presently, about half of the counties meet or exceed this 95% coverage level (mostly the counties in the southern half of the state). The biggest coverage issues remain in the northern tier.

The system is not designed to provide a specific coverage for portables. It is being designed to get 95% or greater coverage for mobile radios. Many of the users will be using primarily mobile radios. With the VTAC units installed in many vehicles, the 95% mobile coverage will essentially mean that coverage would be the same for portables since the portable would only need to talk back to the VTAC unit to maintain a system link. Of course, this improved portable coverage only applies to those entities using VTAC units.