California Radio Interoperable System (CRIS)

norcalscan

Interoperating Spurious Emissions
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
424
Location
The real northern california
Remember the physical build-out also takes an entire floor-to-ceiling 19" rack, with another half rack of batteries, and two AC outlets per redundant power supply in the six radios. So it's quite intrusive in some of the vaults these are going in. Six radios, with control, gives you 10 TDMA slots? Any phase 1 subscriber would bonk a radio down to FDMA right? Not so sure these initial build outs could handle a lot of local government traffic, while maintaining their priority of wide-area interoperability traffic, without a few more voice channels on the hill. Not sure what an expansion physically looks like, probably a 3rd rack half radio half battery. The state has a 17Mhz block granted to them; 96 12.5khz channels.

Also not sure if they'll geographically zone out the system for some TGID's, for instance a Butte County subscriber couldn't tune into their local talkgroup down in San Diego and tie up a voice channel down there. Lots of unknowns still.
 

franks_ham

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
595
Location
Sonoma Co., California
Remember the physical build-out also takes an entire floor-to-ceiling 19" rack, with another half rack of batteries, and two AC outlets per redundant power supply in the six radios. So it's quite intrusive in some of the vaults these are going in. Six radios, with control, gives you 10 TDMA slots? Any phase 1 subscriber would bonk a radio down to FDMA right? Not so sure these initial build outs could handle a lot of local government traffic, while maintaining their priority of wide-area interoperability traffic, without a few more voice channels on the hill. Not sure what an expansion physically looks like, probably a 3rd rack half radio half battery. The state has a 17Mhz block granted to them; 96 12.5khz channels.

Also not sure if they'll geographically zone out the system for some TGID's, for instance a Butte County subscriber couldn't tune into their local talkgroup down in San Diego and tie up a voice channel down there. Lots of unknowns still.
Figure three racks per basic setup, not two. It gets real tight in there! Also, I would think, and this is just the "old school" person in me, that being able to listen to "YOUR" talkgroup from a distance away would be helpful.

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,757
Remember the physical build-out also takes an entire floor-to-ceiling 19" rack, with another half rack of batteries, and two AC outlets per redundant power supply in the six radios. So it's quite intrusive in some of the vaults these are going in.
This is why, in my opinion, partnering with existing systems is probably the better way to go and then use the state resources to fill the gaps. From my personal experience when the State of Ohio figured this out the Ohio MARCS system took off.

Six radios, with control, gives you 10 TDMA slots? Any phase 1 subscriber would bonk a radio down to FDMA right? Not so sure these initial build outs could handle a lot of local government traffic, while maintaining their priority of wide-area interoperability traffic, without a few more voice channels on the hill.
Again from a personal experience standpoint, the Northern Kentucky Regional Radio System in my area has 6 TDMA radios per site with most talkgroups from the three counties currently participating in the system roaming to all three sites. I will admit I was extremely skeptical about them having enough paths and from time to time they do have a talkgroup or two running in FDMA but to my surprise they have had no issues and the NKY RCS is a VERY active system covering a large part of the population of greater Cincinnati.

Also not sure if they'll geographically zone out the system for some TGID's, for instance a Butte County subscriber couldn't tune into their local talkgroup down in San Diego and tie up a voice channel down there. Lots of unknowns still.
This is how the Ohio MARCS system works. The vast majority of local talkgroups are partitioned to the home site(s) only while a few others are allowed to roam to sites one county surrounding the home site(s) and one or two talkgroups are allowed to roam statewide. If a user is out of the area and needs to communicate with their home area they switch to the statewide talkgroup and either the person they need to talk with also switches to the statewide talkgroup or dispatch will patch the local talkgroup to the statewide talkgroup. MARCS also has several dedicated statewide talkgroups on the system that are required to be programmed into every radio that can be used to talk to and from any part of the state.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
593
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.
Reading the document you linked to it appears that this system will be for interoperability only, not an all encompassing statewide all agency, one system like some states have or are building. Many of the smaller and flatter states east of the Rockies have such systems. North and South Dakota are examples. In the west Colorado has one that is pretty much built out. These systems seek to have the garbage trucks and animal control on this one system as well, so a true all government services radio system. My reading of the introduction on the CRIS website finds the word interoperability used several times. The following statements lead me to this conclusion:

". . . . . . which interfaces to similar local systems throughout the state of California."

So it will interface to local systems, not replace them.

"To ensure all of California’s Public Safety Agencies have access to reliable interoperable communications capabilities."

Agencies are to have access to interoperable communications, which leaves out a goal of providing a statewide (60% of land area, 90% of population) all encompassing, single radio system. I think the state is replacing the old CESRS, which consists of one repeater pair, 153.7550/154.9800 on dozens of electronic sites around the state, all connected to the state's microwave backbone. My opinion is that OES is acknowledging that this single frequency pair network has outlived its usefulness, especially in urban areas. They also realize the number of 700/800 MHz systems that exist or are being planned in urban areas. The CESRS is still useful in the rural portions of the state where there is significant topography.

"To design and implement a statewide communication system with emphasis on providing interoperable communications between California’s Public Safety Agencies while supporting normal day-to-day public safety operations."

The last portion of that statement could be interpreted to mean this system is going to become a system for ALL routine daily operations. When I read the other quotes and put them into context, I don't make that interpretation. I think the CRIS will allow multiple agencies responding to a mutual aid situation, each possibly having disparate radio systems, to communicate with each other. I see it as a system that is similar to the function of the so called "CALCORD" frequency of 156.0750. Only time will tell which interpretation is correct, or someone might submit some agency or committee meeting notes that will clear this up. That is why I previously said "only time will tell."

The state already has several comm vans and some CHP SUVs that are capable of providing interfaces between VHF, UHF and 700/800 systems. Some counties and cities have the same. I wonder if CRIS will provide the same service, but be in place permanently, eliminating the wait time for these specialized vehicles to arrive on scene.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
593
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
I read another document that shows CRIS being an interoperability, between disparate systems, backbone type system. CRIS was called the "System of Systems" (SoS) in strategic planning done more than 10 years ago. After combing through the OES website, I found that this 2010 document is still the governing document for the overall design of this SoS:

CA Public Safety Radio Communications Strategic Plan

This plan outlined that this SoS would be a bridge between systems and won't replace any agency's system. Accordingly, it does not mention replacing county and local agency systems or the systems of many state agencies. This is not going to be a single statewide system similar to Colorado.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,757
I completely agree that WE do not know yet exactly what the CRIS system will end up being.

The "System of Systems" is exactly what the Ohio MARCS and several other "statewide" radio systems are called. The term System of Systems refers to several local systems all linked together to form one system. As an example, again with Ohio MARCS, most of the simulcast sites throughout the state are owned and operated by the local agencies and are a site within the larger Ohio MARCS BEE00-348 P25 trunking system. The local agency still has control over all aspects of the site they manage and work with the state to allow other local and state agencies to roam onto their site (this is done via talkgroup policy and management). These simulcast sites were all independent P25 trunking systems before connecting to the BEE00-348 system. The reason why they are all now part of the BEE00-348 system and not running as an independent system is due to the limitations of the ISSI (and other linking devices). It's much easier to connect all the sites to the same master controller than to connect them via ISSI. It's also cheaper for new P25 trunking systems to connect to the states master controller as a site than to go out and buy an independent master controller and an ISSI.

As a California example, if the SRRCS (BEE00-5F2), Solano RCS (BEE00-8D8), EBRCS (BEE00-1F1), SVRCS (BEE00-5E4), San Mateo RCS (BEE00-38D) and San Francisco (BEE00-2BB) systems were to become locally owned and operated sites connected to the CRIS (BEE00-9D2) systems master controller they would then be a System of Systems. This System of Systems would allow users on the proper talkgroups to seamlessly roam from Sacramento to San Francisco without losing system coverage, needing to change talkgroups as they move or needing to switch radios.

Also if the state wants true paying customers they are going to need to support local agencies with day to day operations. While they can (and it sounds like they are) charge state agencies to use the CRIS system they are basically just taking state money and moving it around at that point. To have true paying customers they will need local agencies to join the system and no local agency is going to pay to have an "interoperable" talkgroup or two on the system.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,757
This System of Systems would allow users on the proper talkgroups to seamlessly roam from Sacramento to San Francisco without losing system coverage, needing to change talkgroups as they move or needing to switch radios.
Just to emphasize the overall benefits of connecting all of these independent "systems" into one BEE00-9D2 "system of systems" I will give this real-world example. Lets say the City of Roseville has a pursuit of a murder suspect, the Roseville PD officers could switch their portable radios to the "Valley Pursuit" statewide roaming talkgroup with the radios affiliated to the City of Roseville site. Lets say the pursuit gets onto I-80 west, as the officers drive west into Sacramento County the Roseville PD radios would automatically affiliate with the SRRCS site while still on the "Valley Pursuit" talkgroup. Being that the City of Citrus Heights PD dispatchers (via policy) are always monitoring the "Valley Pursuit" talkgroup in the communications center they advise the CHPD units of the pursuit and have an officer or two switch to "Valley Pursuit" to coordinate setting up a spike strip at Antelope Road. Lets say the suspect avoids the strip and continues westbound I-80, now the Sacramento CHP Communications Center has advised the North Sacramento CHP units of the pursuit (because they are also always monitoring "Valley Pursuit" via policy) and two or three CHP officers at the North Sacramento CHP office switch to "Valley Pursuit" and setup to take over the pursuit at Madison Avenue. Now the pursuit passes Madison Avenue and CHP takes over and they ask if any agencies up ahead can setup strips. The Sacramento PD dispatch center (because they are monitoring "Valley Pursuit") asks an officer to switch to "Valley Pursuit" to coordinate setting up the strip. The pursuit now continues on I-80 passing SR-51 (Business 80) and the Sacramento PD unit gets the strip setup at Norwood Avenue. The suspect hits the strip but keeps on going. Now lets say the pursuit continues through Sacramento to West Sacramento and into Davis. Because Davis is a separate site on the SRRCS all of the radios for the units in the pursuit automatically affiliate to the Davis SRRCS site on the "Valley Pursuit" talkgroup. Now being that the pursuit is moving into the CHP Golden Gate area the Golden Gate CHP dispatcher patches the "Golden Gate Pursuit" talkgroup to the "Valley Pursuit" talkgroup and advises the Solano CHP units to switch to the "Golden Gate Pursuit" talkgroup. The Solano CHP units switch to "Golden Gate Pursuit" with radios affiliated to the Solano RCS site. As the pursuit moves into Solano County all of the radios automatically affiliate to the Solano RCS site on the patched "Valley/Golden Gate Pursuit" supergroup. The pursuit is now entering Dixon and the Solano CHP units have a spike strip setup at Pitt School Road. The suspect hits the strip and this brings the pursuit to a stop, the suspect is then taken into custody without further incident. Because Roseville PD dispatch is still monitoring "Valley Pursuit" they send a Roseville PD unit to Dixon to pickup the suspect and transport them back to the Roseville Jail and they tell the Roseville PD officer to switch to "CO-31" the dedicated statewide roaming talkgroup for all agencies in Placer County (31 is the number alphabetically assigned to Placer County) so they can maintain communications with the officer as they travel to and from Dixon. As the Roseville PD officer drives from Roseville to Dixon and back their radio automatically affiliates with each site as they go.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,757
Granted this is all in a "perfect" world, but that won't happen easily! ;)
It's all about the attitude, lots of other places are already getting it done.


and you can also do a lot of that using a regional interop or programming neighboring agencies in the radios.
The point I was trying to make was that by having all of these "systems" as a single "system of systems" it would not require the officers to change channels as they went in and out of the different coverage areas, the radios would automaticity affiliate with the neighboring site as the radios moved. This is a huge benefit while driving in pursuit mode. The other point was that this can be done on a portable radio due to the enhanced portable coverage of the simulcast sites already in place. This is also a huge benefit if the driver takes foot bail.


I mean, CHP already has a ton of UHF and VHF frequencies they don’t really use. Just smash them all together for a crossband repeater system and you’ll cover most of the state.
Every CHP vehicle in the state already has the ability to crossband repeat but again this requires them to play with the radios while chasing a suspect down the interstate.
 

modestoscan1

Newbie
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Messages
2
Location
Central Valley retired
It's all about the attitude, lots of other places are already getting it done.
Therein lies the problem. The people hired to promote this exact attitude across our agencies in Cali are always busy doing other duties as assigned. We have the people, we have the resources, but the get up and go got up and left a long time ago.
 

franks_ham

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
595
Location
Sonoma Co., California
Every CHP vehicle in the state already has the ability to crossband repeat but again this requires them to play with the radios while chasing a suspect down the interstate.
Well if they were given PROPER radio training at the academy on how to do all that plus some as they initiate a pursuit instead of having to fumble through it......

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

RussH

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
33
While the goal of this system might be getting smaller-agency buy-in this system doesn't account for replacement subscriber cost to do so. Also the proposed coverage is so limited to make this proposed system a poor local investment.
 

PrivatelyJeff

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
818
Location
Kings County, CA
Every CHP vehicle in the state already has the ability to crossband repeat but again this requires them to play with the radios while chasing a suspect down the interstate.

What are you talking about? Why would a vehicle do any crossband repeating?

I’m talking about how it’s done in Kern county where there is a LB, VHF and UHF repeater sites all tied together. When CHP and locals needto talk to each other just go to the cross band repeater. What comes in one band goes out the others.
 
Top