California Radio Interoperable System (CRIS)

kg6nlw

Railroad & Ham Radio Extrodinare
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
1,067
Location
Sonoma Co., California
@scannerboy02 we can add TG 144 to the list of heard TG's now...Downtown Sacramento last night.

2021/12/28 18:21:26 Freq=769.206250 NAC=9D7 Registration; RID=385 ACCEPT
2021/12/28 18:21:26 Freq=769.206250 NAC=9D7 Affiliation; RID=385 TG=144 ACCEPT

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

officer_415

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
1,405
Location
SF Bay Area
Site 40 on the air.
BEE00.9D2-1.40 NAC $9D0
CC 770.44375
scc 774.06875
scc 773.56875
scc 774.05625
No neighbors, like all the other sites I can hear.

It's rather weak here and co-channel with Santiago, so I'd be guessing the Santa Barbara area. The high-level sites CA has licensed are on La Cumbre Peak and Santa Ynez Peak, so it's probably one of the two. Coverage on the 101 north of Las Cruces would differentiate the two sites, as that's where SYP obstructs LCP. Other locations are certainly possible, so go check if you can hear it!

Probably Santa Ynez, I don't think the state has anything on La Cumbre. I've added it to the DB.
 

ScanFanEd

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
258
Location
Southern California
Curious about a couple of things. Thoughts?

-- In reality, when could we expect the system to actually be in use for day to day operations? Perhaps 2024?

-- No doubt encryption will be alive and well. Do we feel like there may be some activity/talkgroups that will be in the clear?
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
2,084
Curious about a couple of things. Thoughts?

-- In reality, when could we expect the system to actually be in use for day to day operations? Perhaps 2024?

-- No doubt encryption will be alive and well. Do we feel like there may be some activity/talkgroups that will be in the clear?
Given the normal delays that occur and are occuring with a system of this size, when it will go into official use could be anyone's guess. From some of the observations that have been seen already it appears some agencies are already using it in some minor capacity, but not day to day use.

While encryption will definitely be in use on some talk groups, being that this system is intended for interoperability full encryption would tend to hinder that ability in some ways.
 

AM909

Radio/computer geek
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,276
Location
SoCal
Curious about a couple of things. Thoughts?

-- In reality, when could we expect the system to actually be in use for day to day operations? Perhaps 2024?

-- No doubt encryption will be alive and well. Do we feel like there may be some activity/talkgroups that will be in the clear?
Have we figured out what "day to day operations" looks like; whether it includes routine operations of individual agencies (i.e., dispatch)? I didn't think so, given the "interoperability" in the name.

I think interoperability has been stated to not be compatible with encryption in things like the NIFOG and Cal-IFOG.
 

norcalscan

Interoperating Spurious Emissions
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
523
Location
The real northern california
Remember, it's designed for mobile use, not portable coverage. So any portable coverage is best-effort only. I personally think other than a few exceptions, the usage of the system as a whole will start out very slow and quiet. There is no other existing system or users this is replacing, so no existing radio traffic that will suddenly "move." It'll likely start out as a very wide-area "chief's net" for law and fire branch which will replace their very limited use (weekly testing) of CESRS, and even more limited use of Satellite PTT talkgroups.

The exceptions are some smaller agencies that look like they might be jumping on board as a more primary subscriber/user, such as some fire districts in Santa Cruz it sounds like? Also any major metro area that signs on as a secondary user and sort of "trades services" between the two systems, so CRIS subscribers can affiliate and use the regional system like EBRICS, and vice versa EBRICS users can jump onto CRIS for Wide Area coverage; likely acting as a "chief's net" as well, with admins traveling around the state to meetings and workshops, and have PTT access to home agency via their interop or wide area talk group. I can also see some CHP multicasting, for situational awareness, or even continued testing to artificially produce traffic on sites.

In short, we can crystal ball this thing to death. The only known to this system is it's mobile-centric design, and it does not forklift replace any existing radio users. So as soon as a site becomes linked to the core, for all we know it might be considered online and live today, at least under a best-effort guarantee while PSC finishes tweaking. There are no immediate problems this is a solution for, it is a solution looking for problems.
 

tsalmrsystemtech

Active Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,595
No. If you look at the PDF that was linked to, Phase 5 of the project, 2023-2034 shows a geographical coverage of 60% and a population coverage of 90%. That means 40% of the geographical areas of the state and 10% of the population will not have coverage.

That would be nothing close to what the CHP has now.

The coverage difference you'd get between VHF Low band and 700MHz is extreme. It would take hundreds, if not thousands, of sites to get that sort of coverage on 700MHz.
I'm getting ready to build out a 3 channel 800MHz conventional system right now, and trying to cover just a small part of one county is taking quite a number of sites.

And they just ordered 3000 new multi-RF deck radios, Low Band, VHF, UHF and 700/800MHz.


I am firm believer in this post above. I think CHP could have some interop channels on the system for statewide use, but to switch over fulltime is probably not going to happen. Maybe in 5 to 10 years if the system can prove 90 to 100 percent coverage to the state. But having to build out hundreds or thousands of repeaters is probably not going to happen. I guess some states are so flat and not so dense populated that a statewide highway patrol agency can join. I guess California is a different beast I believe. I guess its our topography.

Utah has a lot of mountains and their topography is pretty mountain ness. But a lot of their counties still use VHF high band and repeat to the statewide Utah system. Maybe California will have a lot of VHF repeaters or use existing ones to repeat to the CRIS.
 

kg6nlw

Railroad & Ham Radio Extrodinare
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
1,067
Location
Sonoma Co., California
As of 01/08/22, Inyo got some new frequency additions to the CRIS lineup...

154.36250
154.74750
155.22750
155.45250
158.77500
159.23250
159.25500
159.45750

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

AM909

Radio/computer geek
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,276
Location
SoCal
So, those freqs are on a new license for the State of California, WROY819, granted 2022-01-03. The lower 4 freqs are 100-watt FB8 (centralized trunk relays) on Silver Peak. The upper 4 freqs are for 9500 mobiles with an 80km radius around Silver Peak. In addition to the P25 emissions (8K10F1E and 8K10F1W mobile and base, 9K80D7W base), plain narrowband analog voice (11K2F3E) is also licensed. The eligibility statement is "90.20a – Official duties of the State of California, ... CRIS". The app was filed back in September and was returned (after 3 months), amended, resubmitted in December, then granted.

Anyone in Silver Peak's coverage area hear P25 on the lower 4 freqs? (Note there are other licenses/users on some of the channels that I haven't waded through)
 

norcalscan

Interoperating Spurious Emissions
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
523
Location
The real northern california
Anyone in Silver Peak's coverage area hear P25 on the lower 4 freqs? (Note there are other licenses/users on some of the channels that I haven't waded through)

To clarify, "lower" being the 154/155MHz range vs the "upper" 158/159MHz, and not the position within the list of freqs in franks_ham's post. ;)
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
2,084
And while checking on
Silver Peak (WROY819)
154.3625
154.7475
155.2275
155.4525

let's not forget about

Sherwin Summit (WROU856)
151.0025
151.2350
151.4525
154.1675

Conway Summit (WROV267)
151.1450
154.1825
154.8150
155.3250

Crestview Peak (WROV271)
151.2050
154.2050
154.7625
155.1300

Sweetwater Mountain (still in pending status)
154.3175
154.8525
155.1525
155.3550

If no one gets to these in the next 2-3 months I will check them on my next trip out to California, likely sometime in April.
 

KK6ZTE

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
913
Location
California
Well that confirms site 36 is at Williams hill. I wonder if they still have Fremont peak on the list. Anyone in SLO area see anything pop up out there?
Site 35 is on the air, albeit very weak. Based on signal strength and site number, Rocky Butte makes the most sense for it.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,748
Location
Soledad, CA
There's been alot of activity on site 36 techs were using TG 159, but it was ENC. I also got 700xx ID's 20xx TG's and many others. Seems like the radio techs use 13x 14x 15x TG's.

These RID AND TG's I log so far
 

Attachments

  • CRIS Radio ID's.txt
    287 bytes · Views: 17
  • CRIS TG's.txt
    170 bytes · Views: 23

vince48

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
1,158
Location
Central Valley, CA.
There's been alot of activity on site 36 techs were using TG 159, but it was ENC. I also got 700xx ID's 20xx TG's and many others. Seems like the radio techs use 13x 14x 15x TG's.

These RID AND TG's I log so far
Yes, much activity here on the I believe on the Blueridge and Joaquin sites. the techs have been in Fresno the last couple of days. This am techs talking to Sacramento and Redding, I also heard those techs contact Fresno CHP dispatch low band "pink"
 
Top