California Radio Interoperable System (CRIS)

ECPD279

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Messages
798
Location
Bay Area, CA
I second the notion that site 13 is likely Mt. St. Helena. Reception gets stronger the farther north you go in the east bay, but is non-existent in the Concord area.
 
Last edited:

WX4JCW

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
2,919
Location
All Over USA
A lot of registrations RID:307 for TGID:147 on the Santiago Peak site no voice yet, also it doesn’t look like it’s tied in to the other sites yet
In in the area for a week so I’ll keep an eye out
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,685
Submitted to DB

Site 20 is now online.

Site: 1.20 NAC=9D0

Channel 1-1184: 769.40625 CC
Channel 1-1384: 770.65625 SCC
Channel 1-1808: 773.30625 SCC
Channel 1-1854: 773.59375 SCC

Possibly Loma Prieta based on reception from various east bay locations.
Based on the site ID pattern I see presenting itself, I believe you would be correct with Loma Prieta.

This is nothing official but based on the pattern I see developing the Bay Area sites could be,
12 - Seigler
13 - St. Helena
14 - English Hill or Sonoma?
15 - Mt. Vaca
16 - Sonoma or English Hill?
17 - Mt. Tamalpais?
18 - Mt. Diablo
19 - Sunol Ridge?
20 - Loma Prieta
 
Last edited:

N6ML

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,146
Location
SF Bay / Delta, CA
I've heard some "radio check" and "testing..1..2.." type stuff on Site 2, as recently as 2021-04-05. Not sure this counts as "comms" :)
 

kj6psg

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
152
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
Site 25 on the air. Pretty strong here, only about 10dB down in signal strength from the VNC 700 MHz simulcast and significantly stronger than any of the other CRIS sites; it's going to be one of the local hilltops here (Red, South, or Laguna). Coverage in Santa Paula/Fillmore would indicate South; coverage along the 33 in Ventura would indicate Red; and coverage in the south-facing slopes of Camarillo's foothills would indicate Laguna. Easy test.

WACN $BEE00, Sys ID $9D2, RFSS 1, Site ID 25, NAC $9D5
CC 773.08125
scc 773.55625
scc 773.78125
scc 774.33125

I didn't stick around long enough to grab BSI info.
 

kj6psg

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
152
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
Site 25 on the air. ... Coverage in Santa Paula/Fillmore would indicate South; coverage along the 33 in Ventura would indicate Red; and coverage in the south-facing slopes of Camarillo's foothills would indicate Laguna. Easy test.
I did some testing of this using a calibrated signal strength meter tied to GPS. Site 25 was obstructed by Camarillo's hills; strong on the west-facing slope of the 101 grade; strongest on the 118 between Moorpark and Simi Valley; obstructed by the hills just north of the Simi Valley Recycling Center; and not audible in the western portion of Simi Valley. I can conclusively say that this new CRIS site is South Mountain. Should be in the same building as CMARS Green.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
463
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
I did some testing of this using a calibrated signal strength meter tied to GPS. Site 25 was obstructed by Camarillo's hills; strong on the west-facing slope of the 101 grade; strongest on the 118 between Moorpark and Simi Valley; obstructed by the hills just north of the Simi Valley Recycling Center; and not audible in the western portion of Simi Valley. I can conclusively say that this new CRIS site is South Mountain. Should be in the same building as CMARS Green.
Good work! I'm somewhat familiar with the area, but moved from southern California in 1973, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. It is interesting to hear that the CMARS system is still in use. Locally, the licenses for CMARS repeaters on Silver Peak, the most important electronic site for the eastern Sierra, were cancelled. One repeater on CMARS Blue was installed. An additional Green repeater was licensed, but never installed. I had both in my scanners for a couple of decades, but never heard a peep on the frequency. I watch the most recently granted FCC authorizations for Inyo and Mono Counties and will be keeping an eye out for any CRIS licensing, which I would expect to be on Silver Peak. Nearly all of the floor of the Owens Valley can be covered from Silver Peak, but Mono County will present significant coverage issues. Caltrans has 4 additional repeaters just to cover the state highways, along with a bunch of UHF linked sites to cover the June Lake Loop and Tioga Pass. 800 MHz is not a good choice in remote, mountainous, rural areas.

The U.S. Forest Service uses 7 repeater sites to cover the portion of the Inyo National Forest in Mono County. There are two major blind spots in this coverage and two of these sites, which are long walk-in climbs or helicopter access only, cannot accommodate additional users.. CESRS coverage is spotty from one site in southern Mono County, at the top of the Sherwin Grade north of Bishop. Mono County's most important electronic site, the hub of all county systems, is at Conway Summit, 12 miles south of the county seat in Bridgeport. However, the county has a total of 12 repeaters on VHF-High to cover most of the county on all of its systems. I suspect it would require at least 12 more if 800 MHz was used. The west side of the Sierra Nevada is far more problematic that the eastern escarpment.

This CRIS system, as I understand it, will be for OES uses only. Many people are stating it is the start of a statewide, all inclusive, all agency at all levels, 700/800 MHz system. I've given up trying to point out that it isn't. Just building an all agency system in L.A. County, is proving to be somewhat overwhelming, if it is really finally is built out in that manner. It would cover the flatlands, but 800 MHz for all of the San Gabriels may not ever happen. I hope it isn't as the Angeles National Forest has too many electronic sites now.
 

mcjones2013

Radio Communications Enthusiast
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
485
I watch the most recently granted FCC authorizations for Inyo and Mono Counties and will be keeping an eye out for any CRIS licensing, which I would expect to be on Silver Peak.
Unfortunately, CRIS is being assigned frequencies that are under the 700 MHz State License for California, which they already have, and have statewide exclusive use of, and thus don't need to register each and every site they use under this license.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
463
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
Unfortunately, CRIS is being assigned frequencies that are under the 700 MHz State License for California, which they already have, and have statewide exclusive use of, and thus don't need to register each and every site they use under this license.
Many thanks for the tip. However, when a new statewide license is issued, covering the two county area I live in, they usually show up in the recent authorization page. It might be that way only when actual sites in those counties are licensed. I know it works that way for Caltrans, CDF, CHP and others. Or, maybe I'm missing a lot.
 

franks_ham

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
560
Location
Sonoma Co., California
I second the notion that site 13 is likely Mt. St. Helena. Reception gets stronger the farther north you go in the east bay, but is non-existent in the Concord area.
I have to third this notion as today I am picking up what is possibly CRIS off Mt. St. Helena in Cloverdale with a small Yagi.

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,685
This CRIS system, as I understand it, will be for OES uses only. Many people are stating it is the start of a statewide, all inclusive, all agency at all levels, 700/800 MHz system. I've given up trying to point out that it isn't.
Have you read the documents posted on the CRIS website? It is very much being shopped around for any/all agencies that would like to use it. Also according to public meetings they have presented at they may also be willing to connect existing P25 sites to it at some point.

They have also mentioned in public meetings that they may use VHF and/or UHF to fill some areas. They have emphasized that the system is not meant to cover 100% of the geographic area of the state, the intent is to cover as much of the population of the state as possible.
 
Last edited:

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,858
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Have you read the documents posted on the CRIS website? It is very much being shopped around for any/all agencies that would like to use it. Also according to public meetings they have presented at they may also be willing to connect existing P25 sites to it at some point.

They have also mentioned in public meetings that they may use VHF and/or UHF to fill some areas. They have emphasized that the system is not meant to cover 100% of the geographic area of the state, the intent is to cover as much of the population of the state as possible.
Very well said. Our county fire agencies are looking at it. Completely ridiculous plan due to the terrain they deal with and the fact that only one or two sites will be within range. It takes 22 sites to get the VHF coverage they have now. But, none the less it is open to other agencies.
 

KG7PBS

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
400
Location
Sacramento CA
Very well said. Our county fire agencies are looking at it. Completely ridiculous plan due to the terrain they deal with and the fact that only one or two sites will be within range. It takes 22 sites to get the VHF coverage they have now. But, none the less it is open to other agencies.
I think there plan is to add sites and if an Agency wants on the system but needs more sites. To get that Agency to pay for the added sits.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,858
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
I think there plan is to add sites and if an Agency wants on the system but needs more sites. To get that Agency to pay for the added sits.
Yep. But reality is the whole reason they want to move to CRIS is that they are not willing to pay any money to add a few sites to the conventional VHF system they have now to get the coverage they want.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,685
I also think it's important to remember that this system is only a year or so in to an at least 5 year initial buildout of the "state owned" sites.

If the state wants to attract paying customers (this is how you fund ongoing maintenance) they will need to put a lot of work into partnering with local/county agencies who are looking to build P25 trunking system and who already have P25 trunking systems in place.

I know Stockton just got an application approved for a P25 trunking system and in my opinion that was probably an opportunity missed for the state and the city. If the state had partnered with Stockton to install a 9D2 simulcast site with Stockton paying for the towers and tower equipment and the state providing the P25 core and site equipment as well as perhaps a few frequencies it likely would save Stockton a good amount of money and enhance the 9D2 system coverage. Then you take it a step further via negotiations with other agencies in San Joaquin County and instead of a simulcast site just for Stockton you turn it into a simulcast site covering the entire county with some of those agencies paying for the buildout and some just paying the normal subscriber fees.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,685
The other thing the state should already have in place or be working on is "state pricing" through multiple vendors that way agencies that join the state system will have a little more incentive via equipment pricing.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
463
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
Have you read the documents posted on the CRIS website? It is very much being shopped around for any/all agencies that would like to use it. Also according to public meetings they have presented at they may also be willing to connect existing P25 sites to it at some point.

They have also mentioned in public meetings that they may use VHF and/or UHF to fill some areas. They have emphasized that the system is not meant to cover 100% of the geographic area of the state, the intent is to cover as much of the population of the state as possible.
Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see how this system develops. It is still my opinion that this system won't absorb the existing radio systems of all state agencies, let alone local ones. It is also interesting to see the goal is to cover 90% of the state's population, when 95% of all state residents live in urban areas. So the 60% of the state the system is not going to cover will all be rural areas. That is good as 800 MHz doesn't work in rural areas with significant topography. Interoperability is working just fine and has been since the 1980's on VHF High in rural areas. I say, don't mess with something that works.
 
Top