Colo Springs TRS on DTRS DB

[k0pwo]

I thought the Springs TRS is a seperate system even though they recently moved up to apco25? Did I miss something? They do have a different network ID thus making it a seperate system. So why has the Springs TRS data been included into the DTRS DB? Isn't that going to confuse people?

Just my thoughts!

Dave

 

[firescannerbob]

Whomever added that info to the DTRS DB did so in error. While it will EVENTUALLY be part of the DTRS, it is indeed very separate now. and should not be included in the DTRS DB.

To be clear, before anything else happens, the state has to upgrade it's firmware to version 7.x

 

[k0pwo]

Hey Bob,

Do you have any idea what the difference is between the version that el paso county is on (i am guessing it is ver 7.0) and the version that the state is on? I am guessing, the version is referring to the network controller version that the trunking controllers operate on. I would figure if you were to program the dtrs system into one of your el paso radios it would work just great on the dtrs. Is that correct as far as you know, or am I wrong?

 

[firescannerbob]

My understanding is that the state is on version 5.X, and El Paso County is using the latest (and only version that Moto is selling) which is version 7.x. I have been told that the two versions are not compatible.
Having said that, it's possible that that only concerns the network controllers, and it is possible that El Paso County radios would work on the DTRS, but not the other way around. I am not 100% sure of that, however, so don't take that to the bank.
I've been told that when our radios are re-programmed again (soon, I hope), that we will have DTRS MAC tg's, but that they actually will not work. I'm not 100% sure why that is.
Until the CCNC upgrades the version used in the DTRS, the El Paso County system can't become the 4th zone.

 

[MMIC]

Do you have any idea what the difference is between the version that el paso county is on (i am guessing it is ver 7.0) and the version that the state is on? I am guessing, the version is referring to the network controller version that the trunking controllers operate on. I would figure if you were to program the dtrs system into one of your el paso radios it would work just great on the dtrs. Is that correct as far as you know, or am I wrong?

El Paso County is at ASTRO-25 release 7.2. The State of Colorado is at ASTRO-25 release 6.5. How the system processes calls is exactly the same, but there are added features to release 7.2, such as the ability to have IP-based consoles, along with a lot of hardware changes (new zone controllers, routers, switches, etc.). Most of the software that is running on the system is exactly the same as earlier releases, with the new features added to them. If El Paso County programmed DTRS into their radios for the MAC talk groups, they would work just fine - as long as they were using DTRS sites, not the El Paso County system.

When El Paso County reprograms their radios, it will probably be in advance of connecting their system to DTRS (they have to in order to change the trunked system attributes to work when their system changes to D1C) - so the MAC talk groups will probably either be turned off, or turned on but don't work outside of their system until it is connected with the rest of DTRS. CCNC will have the funding for the jump-upgrade to ASTRO-25 release 7.2, most likely through DOLA grants.

 

[RFsponge]

You guys reminded me of something I meant to ask about, but forgot.

I was running around up in Longmont Tuesday and had some angencies pop up on the OLD Colorado Springs system that I still had in one of my radios. Frederick Fire responding to an illegal burn and what I thought was a Weld County SO assisting with the raid up at the Swift Plant that day. A Mountain View fire unit also came up. All on different TG's, all on the old system. I wish now I would have logged the TG's, but was doing other things...

Can there be some kind of cross-pollenation with the state DTRS under the right conditions? Mutual Aid channels maybe?

Just curious.

Rob

 

[MikeyB]

You guys reminded me of something I meant to ask about, but forgot.

I was running around up in Longmont Tuesday and had some angencies pop up on the OLD Colorado Springs system that I still had in one of my radios. Frederick Fire responding to an illegal burn and what I thought was a Weld County SO assisting with the raid up at the Swift Plant that day. A Mountain View fire unit also came up. All on different TG's, all on the old system. I wish now I would have logged the TG's, but was doing other things...

Can there be some kind of cross-pollenation with the state DTRS under the right conditions? Mutual Aid channels maybe?

Just curious.

Rob

If I recall right, Horsetooth shares a CC with one of the old CS channels. You were probably getting that control tower.

 

[cstockmyer]

You guys reminded me of something I meant to ask about, but forgot.

I was running around up in Longmont Tuesday and had some angencies pop up on the OLD Colorado Springs system that I still had in one of my radios. Frederick Fire responding to an illegal burn and what I thought was a Weld County SO assisting with the raid up at the Swift Plant that day. A Mountain View fire unit also came up. All on different TG's, all on the old system. I wish now I would have logged the TG's, but was doing other things...

Can there be some kind of cross-pollenation with the state DTRS under the right conditions? Mutual Aid channels maybe?

Just curious.

Rob

OK I have to ask a very dumb question..so your in Longmont, and you can hear Colorado Springs? Is that just a huge big antenna? Or is it something else?

 

[jimmnn]

OK I have to ask a very dumb question..so your in Longmont, and you can hear Colorado Springs? Is that just a huge big antenna? Or is it something else?

He is not hearing Colorado Springs it's just similiar control channels being used by different systems across the state.

 

[cstockmyer]

He is not hearing Colorado Springs it's just similiar control channels being used by different systems across the state.

Ok that makes since, thanks Jim!

 

[scanlist]

Some of the VC's on COS/EPSO site 412 are the same as some VC's used on Bald Mtn, Horsetooth, Buckhorn and S. Greeley DTRS sites up here.

867.4000 can get real interesting/confusing when listening to the S. Greeley site with a scanner in Greeley when the DX conditions are good from the South.

Phil.

 

[homeless]

Would this affect a production firm ware year 2003 BC296D?

El Paso County is at ASTRO-25 release 7.2. The State of Colorado is at ASTRO-25 release 6.5. How the system processes calls is exactly the same, but there are added features to release 7.2, such as the ability to have IP-based consoles, along with a lot of hardware changes (new zone controllers, routers, switches, etc.). Most of the software that is running on the system is exactly the same as earlier releases, with the new features added to them. If El Paso County programmed DTRS into their radios for the MAC talk groups, they would work just fine - as long as they were using DTRS sites, not the El Paso County system.

When El Paso County reprograms their radios, it will probably be in advance of connecting their system to DTRS (they have to in order to change the trunked system attributes to work when their system changes to D1C) - so the MAC talk groups will probably either be turned off, or turned on but don't work outside of their system until it is connected with the rest of DTRS. CCNC will have the funding for the jump-upgrade to ASTRO-25 release 7.2, most likely through DOLA grants.

I am currently having issues with my BC296D (late 2003 purchased) from receiving the El Paso/Colorado Springs system. The signals received are intermittent, but the state DTRS comes in great (just fine and totally clear). Would the new upgrade to 7.X effect my ability to receive the signals from this system?
Thanks!
Dave

 

[k0pwo]

Nope, not as far as a scanner is concerned. The version upgrade is for the site controllers and such. Your scanner will not know any difference.

Dave

 

[MMIC]

Dave is correct. The control channel signalling and digital modulation scheme is the same across the different releases, so it will not affect how your scanner operates. Is it possibly the Uniden DSP settings for the system that need to be optimized in your scanner?

 

[scanlist]

There have been several firmware updates for the 296D.

http://www.uniden.com/index/downloads.cfm?product=BC296D

A possibility. When the COS/EPSO system was 3600 you had to set the CNTRL CH ONLY mode to one of the "PLAN" settings. You want to set this to "OFF". The radio uses the tables broadcast over the Control Channel and does not need a "PLAN" setting.

Phil.

 

[homeless]

Tried this recommendation with no avail

There have been several firmware updates for the 296D.

http://www.uniden.com/index/downloads.cfm?product=BC296D

A possibility. When the COS/EPSO system was 3600 you had to set the CNTRL CH ONLY mode to one of the "PLAN" settings. You want to set this to "OFF". The radio uses the tables broadcast over the Control Channel and does not need a "PLAN" setting.

Phil.

Thanks Phil for the info. I tried this just now and its still the same. I emailed Uniden tech support to see what they had to say about this issue. I am also going to buy the CPU cable and try all the firm ware updates as well.
Dave

 

[gonserg]

Dave, Not that this helps you; but I have the EXACT same problem with my Uniden 296D. I would appreciate any info you may find concerning our Unidens, and I will do the same. Thanks, Gary.

 

[MMIC]

Is the issue the DSP settings for the system, or don't they do those user-definable DSP settings on those units?

 

[scanlist]

Thanks Phil for the info. I tried this just now and its still the same. I emailed Uniden tech support to see what they had to say about this issue. I am also going to buy the CPU cable and try all the firm ware updates as well.
Dave

If you bought the 296D new the data cable should have been included in the box.

I'll have to check it out with both the 296 and 796 when site 412 has a good signal up here.

I wonder if the COS/EPSO system is one of the first with the new moto 7.2 release. All it takes is a minor change in the CC data to make the scanners choke.

Now are Uniden 396 & 996 users running into the same problem? If so then Uniden will definately be interested in this.

Phil.

 

[MMIC]

It sounds like it's not a control channel issue that is being experienced, but rather an issue with decoding the data on voice channels. If it was a control channel issue, your radio would not receive calls, or go to the wrong frequency, or some other issue. It's getting to the right frequency, but not decoding the audio properly, correct?

Yes, the Colorado Springs system is one of (if not THE) the first at ASTRO-25 release 7.2.