APX Affiliate vs non-affiliate?

[slobonmycob]

Serious question from an authorized user of a system. Does affiliating a radio to a system track a talk group better than the non-affiliate method?

Adding a radio can be a bit of a pain in the butt. But if it works better affiliating with the system then I will do that.

 

[GTR8000]

Of course it does, that's how the radio was intended to operate.

 

[Spitfire8520]

If your system only has a single site, then there is not a huge difference because (almost) all of the talkgroups will be on the one site.

For a system with multiple sites, then affiliating works better because the system will route the one talkgroup to the site that the radio is affiliated to.

If your system is large with multiple sites, then you need to be aware of the hazards of dragging talkgroups. System administrators may get upset if you drag talkgroups to sites that they are not normally used on. A couple of examples would be traveling while keeping a radio on a home talkgroup or eavesdropping on talkgroups used on the other side of the system. Sites have a limited number of voice channels that can be used at once, which is especially a problem for rural sites that have the fewest channels assigned to them. A talkative talkgroup dragged onto a low capacity site can cause busies on the site and the talkgroup being dragged. Some administrators have inhibited radios for dragging talkgroups in extreme cases.

 

[jeepsandradios]

If your system only has a single site, then there is not a huge difference because (almost) all of the talkgroups will be on the one site.

Not exactly true in MSI world. If no radio is affiliated to a talkgroup it will not go over the air unless its setup in the back end for critical. There are definatly ways to change this behavior but dont think a talkgroup will talk with default settings.

 

[wa8pyr]

If your system is large with multiple sites, then you need to be aware of the hazards of dragging talkgroups. System administrators may get upset if you drag talkgroups to sites that they are not normally used on. A couple of examples would be traveling while keeping a radio on a home talkgroup or eavesdropping on talkgroups used on the other side of the system. Sites have a limited number of voice channels that can be used at once, which is especially a problem for rural sites that have the fewest channels assigned to them. A talkative talkgroup dragged onto a low capacity site can cause busies on the site and the talkgroup being dragged. Some administrators have inhibited radios for dragging talkgroups in extreme cases.

Good point, but any administrator worth their salt would have a large system like that set up so talkgroups cannot roam just anywhere.

Ohio MARCS was a shining example of how not to do it; talkgroups roamed pretty much anywhere, causing loading problems even on some metro/suburban simulcast sites. The most egregious example I ever saw was the solid week the Washington County SO (far SE Ohio) dispatch talkgroup spent tying up the little Van Wert site (far NW Ohio).

When I retired, they were slowly changing most user talkgroups over so they could roam only in their home and surrounding counties (not sure why it was taking so long, it’s not a complicated task).

 

[KE4ZNR]

Good point, but any administrator worth their salt would have a large system like that set up so talkgroups cannot roam just anywhere.

Ohio MARCS was a shining example of how not to do it; talkgroups roamed pretty much anywhere, causing loading problems even on some metro/suburban simulcast sites. When I retired, they were slowly changing most user talkgroups so they could roam only in their home and surrounding counties (not sure why it was taking so long, it’s not a complicated task).

Even with site profiles adjusted for home county+one county each direction VIPER here in NC sees site loading/busies problems. Reason why? Because many VIPER sites are "filler" sites with only 5 or 6 voice frequencies plus 2 control channels. Hence why they are trying to get the migration to Phase II TDMA completed. Only problem is with 100 counties in our state many counties are still having issues with being able to update/upgrade to TDMA ready radios. Usually comes down to $$$money$$$ (Doesn't it always?)
Then you have users like my users: we have a P25 Phase 1 FDMA 24 channel simulcast system and have no plans to migrate to TDMA on our system anytime soon. Yet our city FD runs mutual aid calls daily to nearby areas that use VIPER as their primary comms. So our city FD had to upgrade to TDMA in their radios even though they are only a secondary user of VIPER, not a primary user.

 

[KC3AWP]

Good point, but any administrator worth their salt would have a large system like that set up so talkgroups cannot roam just anywhere.

Ohio MARCS was a shining example of how not to do it; talkgroups roamed pretty much anywhere, causing loading problems even on some metro/suburban simulcast sites. The most egregious example I ever saw was the solid week the Washington County SO (far SE Ohio) dispatch talkgroup spent tying up the little Van Wert site (far NW Ohio).

When I retired, they were slowly changing most user talkgroups over so they could roam only in their home and surrounding counties (not sure why it was taking so long, it’s not a complicated task).

I remember the old PA OpenSky 800 system ran into this a lot in the rural areas that were supported by one of the hundred old mini-sites on telephone poles. We'd get a lost hunter and PSP, DCNR, PA Game Commission, (and if it was winter, the PennDOT plow truck) all trying to associate with a mini site and someone inevitably got bonked.

 

[wa8pyr]

I remember the old PA OpenSky 800 system ran into this alot in the rural areas that were supported by one of the hundred old mini-sites on telephone poles. We'd get a lost hunter and PSP, DCNR, PA Game Commission, (and if it was winter, the PennDOT plow truck) all trying to associate with a mini site and someone inevitably got bonked.

Perfect time to get everybody on one or two interop talkgroups…. but that’s a whole different can of worms.

 

[slobonmycob]

If your system only has a single site, then there is not a huge difference because (almost) all of the talkgroups will be on the one site.

For a system with multiple sites, then affiliating works better because the system will route the one talkgroup to the site that the radio is affiliated to.

If your system is large with multiple sites, then you need to be aware of the hazards of dragging talkgroups. System administrators may get upset if you drag talkgroups to sites that they are not normally used on. A couple of examples would be traveling while keeping a radio on a home talkgroup or eavesdropping on talkgroups used on the other side of the system. Sites have a limited number of voice channels that can be used at once, which is especially a problem for rural sites that have the fewest channels assigned to them. A talkative talkgroup dragged onto a low capacity site can cause busies on the site and the talkgroup being dragged. Some administrators have inhibited radios for dragging talkgroups in extreme cases.

We have special talk groups we us when traveling to prevent dragging.

 

[kayn1n32008]

If your system is large with multiple sites, then you need to be aware of the hazards of dragging talkgroups. System administrators may get upset if you drag talkgroups to sites that they are not normally used on.

A system admin worth their salt will have set up the talkgroups to only be permitted to affiliate on a limited number of sites that are relevant for were the talkgroup is homed. It's a lesson learned many years ago by ARMER(I think). Lots of folks out side the disaster zone dragged talk groups being used at the scene to remote, low RF resource sites, causing them to busy out. One of the AAR lessons was to limit the areas talkgroups could be used to prevent excessive loading. Hence why there are local, regional and state/province wide interop talkgroups on most state wide/province wide trunk systems.

It's also a helpful way to find rogue/whacker radios on these systems. If an admin sees an out of range RID trying to drag a talkgroup it shouldnt/wouldn't ever be associated to, it makes inhibiting it really easy.

 

[Spitfire8520]

Not exactly true in MSI world. If no radio is affiliated to a talkgroup it will not go over the air unless its setup in the back end for critical. There are definatly ways to change this behavior but dont think a talkgroup will talk with default settings.

There are a bunch of exceptions like gateways, foreign talkgroups, SmartConnect, and console only talkgroups that can all have activity without an affiliation, but persumably the vast majority of talkgroups would require at least one subscriber affiliated and using a talkgroup in order to have activity on it to go over the air in the first place.

A system admin worth their salt will have set up the talkgroups to only be permitted to affiliate on a limited number of sites that are relevant for were the talkgroup is homed. It's a lesson learned many years ago by ARMER(I think). Lots of folks out side the disaster zone dragged talk groups being used at the scene to remote, low RF resource sites, causing them to busy out. One of the AAR lessons was to limit the areas talkgroups could be used to prevent excessive loading. Hence why there are local, regional and state/province wide interop talkgroups on most state wide/province wide trunk systems.

Changing the site access profiles would help in the case of dragging local talkgroups around, but it would not resolve the issue of folks eavesdropping on the regional and state interop talkgroups, which are less likely to be limited, when a disaster does happen. It is the double-edged sword of interopability where everyone has the same talkgroups for the big one, but then everyone has the ability to drag to those talkgroups to their tiny site on the other side of the state.

 

[billy2047]

What about interwacn with full spectrum scan enabled subscribers going around pinging every single system it can find? Where I live almost every county has their own countywide system, often time I've seen radios from counties away trying to register. Will that cause issues? Anyone want to chime in on that?

 

[kayn1n32008]

Changing the site access profiles would help in the case of dragging local talkgroups around, but it would not resolve the issue of folks eavesdropping on the regional and state interop talkgroups

Uh, okay?

which are less likely to be limited, when a disaster does happen.

Regional interop talkgroups should only be able to be used on the sites with in it's region. Sure they can be dragged around the region, but should be denied affiliation on sites out side the region. Trying to affiliate a 'SW Region' talkgroup in the 'NE Region' for example.

It is the double-edged sword of interopability where everyone has the same talkgroups for the big one, but then everyone has the ability to drag to those talkgroups to their tiny site on the other side of the state..

It's not really a double edged sword at all. It just comes down to assigning a interop talkgroup with the coverage class appropriate to the size and scope of the disaster.

 

[hitechRadio]

What about interwacn with full spectrum scan enabled subscribers going around pinging every single system it can find? Where I live almost every county has their own countywide system, often time I've seen radios from counties away trying to register. Will that cause issues? Anyone want to chime in on that?

No impact at all. Annoying to watch ZW, YES. And you don't necessarily need to have FSS enabled.
If radio was programmed correctly and kept up to date, really no need for full spectrum scan. Or if radio was programmed correctly and kept up to date, even with FSS enabled radio would not need to use that FSS. FSS does have it's place, like during build outs for example.

Side Note.... many programmers do not realize that the order of the CC list matters in the radio. Our Local and region sites are at the top of the CC list. The the radio checks each entered CC list one by one down the list. By ordering the list, keeps radio's from bouncing around sites when turned on. Radio reg/aff much much faster.
I can't tell you how many times another agency brought me a radio, turn it on.. and takes for ever to reg/aff to the site or bounces around a few sites. Or even worse the radio is set to ignore adjacent site broadcast, FSS is on and CC list not prioritized. Makes for a poor user experience.
Sounds like that may also be part of the issue your seeing.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Side Note.... many programmers do not realize that the order of the CC list matters in the radio.

Also, programmers need to not be lazy.

Fill out the preffered site list.

 

[hitechRadio]

Also, programmers need to not be lazy.

Fill out the preffered site list.

Exactly,, Although I would say it's also they just don't have an understanding of those functions, so they don't touch it. lack of training also.
I see way to many mistakes in the radios, many times they get the templates from, for example a state wide agency. And never make any changes to the radio to optimize for local use.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Exactly,, Although I would say it's also they just don't have an understanding of those functions, so they don't touch it. lack of training also.
I see way to many mistakes in the radios, many times they get the templates from, for example a state wide agency. And never make any changes to the radio to optimize for local use.

At least you get a template, our provincial operator has allowed it to be a free for all, relying on agencies 'local shops' to know how to program radios. Total cluster ****. Zero leadership, zero enforcement of system policies.

Each company does their own thing, especially with naming.

The only naming convention they have put their foot down on is naming the local/regional/province wide interop talkgroups. We have 5x 700MHz simplex channels, and they won't create and/or enforce policy on their names.

One consultant has created a decent business as a consultant/SME for agencies wanting to transition from legacy systems to the province wide syste. He has also made decent bank cleaning up the messes these 'local shops' have made of agencies equipment.

Those 'running' the system are the biggest stumbling block to it being used to its full potential.

 

[billy2047]

No impact at all. Annoying to watch ZW, YES.

The county next to me is a single site simulcast system and their subscribers have FSS, NASS, strong signal roaming and coverage type set to Inter-WACN roaming (why would a single site system need all that features enable). A lot of time when a radio is in a fringe area it will go mad pinging every P25 system it can find.

 

[hitechRadio]

The county next to me is a single site simulcast system and their subscribers have FSS, NASS, strong signal roaming and coverage type set to Inter-WACN roaming (why would a single site system need all that features enable). A lot of time when a radio is in a fringe area it will go mad pinging every P25 system it can find.

Maybe ISSI would be my guess. Assuming there is a State Wide system surrounding them, I would propose that system join with the State with EDGE Availability, and skip the ISSI. But I'm assuming a lot here.