Casper Trunked Public Safety System Info Please

[swlman]

Greetings to fellow scannists! We just moved to Casper this weekend. To my dismay the info I have for Casper's trunked system appears to be inaccurate. I obtained the data from the National Communications website & from the local rat shack. I can hear the control channel but no voice comm at all (id,s etc.). The info I have states the system is a mot Type II 800mhz system. Also, I tried all 16 fleetmaps with a Type I system. No luck either. I have a 780xlt scanner.

Any current info on what freqs public safety uses in Casper would be most appreciated.

Thanks folks!

Swlman :lol:

 

[swlman]

Casper Digital System

OK,

My 780xlt (new) is now a paperweight...Seems Casper PD has gone digital. I can't find much info from the locals. Before I eBay my 780 & plunk down $520 for a 796D can someone tell me what kind of digital system & weather it's encrypted?

I know the proposed statewide system will be APCO 25 based but it will be a VHF trunked system..Don't think any scanner will work with that system...Maybe I'll have to go back to shortwave again.

*sigh*

Swlman

 

[Dubbin]

I find it kinda silly that Casper would have spent the money on a digital system.

 

[SAR923]

Who told you they were digital? The RR database at http://www.radioreference.com/modules.php?name=TRSDB&sid=2223 lists them as a Motorola Type II Smartnet system as does every other reference I have. Even the Casper PD web site says they an 800 mHz trunk system with no mention of digital. Have you tried programming in the frequencies listed at the above link?

 

[SCPD]

Also, when Wyoming does put together their statewide system (because it will cost more to maintain the old systems then to buy a new multi-million dollar system - RIGHT!), it should be monitorable, unless they encrypt. But with VHF, you'll have to figure out the Base Freq., Offset, and step size (and there could be multiple settings).

 

[swlman]

Ok folks...here's the skiiny so far....Seems the system is in fact digital.

FCC website

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/genmen/index.hts

lists the emmission type as 20K0F1E. That corresponds to "Frequency modulated digitized voice" emmision type. Looks like it is an APCO digital system running at 9600 baud. So much for saving money by waiting until the statewide system is finished next year...I called the local Radio Shack back & they confirmed (as much as that counts) they can receive the new system on their Pro-96 rig.

So..looks like I will have to start saving my pennies for a 796D as I want a base-type unit. The saga continues...

Swlman

 

[Halfpint]

Also, when Wyoming does put together their statewide system (because it will cost more to maintain the old systems then to buy a new multi-million dollar system - RIGHT!), it should be monitorable, unless they encrypt. But with VHF, you'll have to figure out the Base Freq., Offset, and step size (and there could be multiple settings).

Have you actually seen what the exisiting `system(s)?' look like? I was up recently doing some property hunting and I managed to get a bit of time free to drop in and visit with a couple friends in a couple agencies up there. One of the complaints, out of many, was that they had `stone kinves and bearskins' to work with for some of their units. (One of the repeaters that one of the systems use was one that I helped install *back in 1972*! I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were a few others still out in use from back then.) Besides some of the equipment being, `politely?', termed `antique' there is also the fact that no matter which company(ies) that make said equipment is/are charging the proverbial `Arm, leg, and left "very personal part of the male anatomy"' for parts and maintenance of said equipment in an effort to `upgrade?' the agencies to the newer `tech-no-golly'. (Fortunately there *are* companies that are making `compatible' equipment these days, finally, that isn't as expensive and, in some cases, just as, or more, reliable. [I thought that my old boss would `scream' when I mentioned, a little over 3 1/2 years ago, that there appeared to actually be some competition for `good old "BatWings"' and he and I went down to his shop and he showed me all the new *non-`BatWings'* equipment he was selling! Not only that but he also told me that his BP had gone down almost 30 `points' and he was finally able to get a full night's worth of sleep since he'd started selling something other than `BatWings'. When I asked him if he missed the `income' that being a `BatWings' dealer brought in he showed me that he hadn't had any drop and actually had a bit of an `upswing'! He was quite `upbeat' about what the proposed WyoLink system is going to do for the State even though he wasn't going to probably get any business from it because he was planning on being retired by the time things got `rolling'. (After over 40yrs `in the business' he decided that it was time to retire and actually spend a few years being a grand and great grand parent.{VB GRIN!} Unfortunately he managed to only get to do that for only about 2 1/2 years. Shortly after the end of last school year we had to attend his funeral. {FROWN!} Fortunately he went peacefully in his sleep a couple days after a family reunion rather than in a hospital hooked up to a bunch of `tubes' and `wires'. In many ways he was like a `second father' to me and I miss him.)])

While the cost of the proposed "WyoLink" system is *not* going to be inconsequential the cost of either trying to maintain all the assorted bits-n-pieces of the old system or go with a complete, from the ground up basically, new system that'll mean that agencies that really cannot afford the new SOTA equipment will have to struggle to get said new equipment and will also probably end up with other `coverage problems' that aren't there now would be a lot more. Even *with* the costs of having to have `links', and the equipment to do such, between the various different `bands' the savings from not having to install as many new `sites' and their `support' is going to probably be very consequential.

As for `encryption'... *Personally* I am betting that except for the occasional necessary `SWAT/SpecOps' type operation *or* some `socialistic leaning' political `hack' getting `in charge' or `getting too big for their britches' the overall `ethos' will preclude that happening. There is just too much `territory' and too few people to `cover' and even with any foreseeable `advances?' in encryption `tech-no-golly' it would be counter productive and too costly. (Unfortunately Casper and Natrona County *is* an area that *I* *could* see a possibility for it. {FROWN!} Even 50 yrs ago there were people there that could be said to `fill the bill' of being in favor of something like that! Cheyenne and *maybe* Laramie County *could*, though not nearly as much, also be another `spot' for `concern' though I'd hope that they *might* have learned a few `lessons?'.) I guess, though, that we'll just have to *carefully* `just sit back and watch' and when it look like things are headed astray raise a `hue and cry' about it.

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {GRIN!}

 

[SCPD]

What I was trying to say is that I don't believe that a multimillion dollar trunking system is cheaper than maintaining conventional systems. I'm sure the system will be very nice and there's nothing wrong with that.

I just want people to be honest about why they want a system - things like new features, capacity, spectrum efficiency (not a problem in Wyoming), keeping up with the neighbors (South Dakota, Colorado).

From a pure money stand point, you could replace every piece of conventional gear (repeaters, radios, backhaul, everything) and it would still be cheaper than a new top of the line, digital trunking system.

Conventional still works fine, it's been around for years, there's lots of competition so the gear is relatively cheap. I don't doubt that some of the agencies have very old gear. And I'm sure that for some of the towns it will be much cheaper for them to join a trunking system that the state built.

I just don't believe for a second that, for the state, it's cheaper to build a new trunking system, which is what they said on their web site. That's called creative accounting, used to get what you want. Unlike most states, Wyoming has money to burn, so good for them, they should build a nice state wide system, just be honest about it.

 

[Halfpint]

What I was trying to say is that I don't believe that a multimillion dollar trunking system is cheaper than maintaining conventional systems. I'm sure the system will be very nice and there's nothing wrong with that.

(... Text Bobbited ...)

I just don't believe for a second that, for the state, it's cheaper to build a new trunking system, which is what they said on their web site. That's called creative accounting, used to get what you want. Unlike most states, Wyoming has money to burn, so good for them, they should build a nice state wide system, just be honest about it.

The way that both my friends and I `read' the `proposal' (And they have talked with the people behind the `proposal', too.) is that those agencies/towns/whatever that either aren't or don't have a need to go `trunked', in the usual sense of the word, will still be able to communicate with those agencies/towns/whatever that are via a `link' into the system. The eventual expectation is that everyone will eventually be able to, at least, have P25 capable radios whether they are `trunked' or not with the ability, if growth is such, to eventually transition to `trunking'. (IE: Why would a `town?' with only, lessay, a population of around 100 - 250 or so and a couple `town marshalls' `dispatched?' by a `clerk' [And there *are* a few of those in the State.] on only a single channel now really need to use a `trunked' radio when in reality all they would need would be a `Talkgroup link' into the `main system' for those occasional `mutual aid' situations? P25 digital modulation would probably be about the only `extra' they'd need beyond the `link' which could, if necessary, also be `crosspatched' if the situation warranted it. ) *That* is just one of the places that savings would be realized over using the `Colorado Model' thereby realizing the `savings' I was talking about. Wyoming *isn't* exactly `swimming' in money `to burn' and the WyoLink proposal/plan is a way to both bring things up to `standards', it *isn't a case of `keeping up with the neighbors' or `system envy', and do it *without* `bankrupting' the State and the associated agencies doing it.

The *other* `savings' that they will realize comes with not going 800MHz throughout the whole State. For a very large part of the State VHF-Hi makes a lot more sense compared to 800MHz and even UHF-Lo makes mores sense for others also compared to 800MHz propagation-wise. For every 800MHz site that doesn't have to be put up it means that money that would have been spent there can then be used for the other equipment needed. (I don't blame them for both not wanting to hassle with / and get away from VHF-Lo. While there are *some*, though danged few, propagation issues that can be `nice' there are a lot more other `issues' that make it a PITA.) While they *will* eventually end up replacing a large percentage of the exisitng equipment they will also be able to do so on a more `controlled' phasing in than would have to be done by going with a `Colorado like' `model'. (Remember... Wyoming is a small State *population-wise* and while they have and are going to be eventually getting `grants' and such to do this they *don't*, and *won't*, have `money to burn'! Even though there *are* those who are, or will be, seduced by the `sweet siren song' of `techo-no-golly' there are also a lot more who are good old `hardscrabble' `no nonsense' `let's get the job done without breaking the bank' because this is the `right way' people still in charge. [Granted that there has been *some* changes over the years towards the `tech-no-golly' for `tech-no-golly's sake' here and there in the State. But, mainly because the State *is* still as `rural' as it is, there is *still* a sense that `tech-no-golly' for `tech-no-golly's sake' *isn't* always the *best* way and it will have to be proven that it is. They *have* `acknowledged' that there *is* a `place' for `trunking' and that there is also a `place' for p25 digital and are planning for it. ]) *I* am glad that they *are* `looking' the `way' they are VS the way other States have gone.

Just and `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {GRIN!}

 

[swlman]

Casper 800mhz P25 Talk Groups Update 1

Hi folks,

I bought a spankin new BC-796D this week. Here is what I have so far:

16 - Police Dispatch - Encrypted
112 - Police TAC - Encrypted
784 - Fire Dispatch
848 - Fire TAC
1104 - EMS Dispatch

As I figure more out I'll post here.

Swl-man

 

[SCPD]

You're telling me those losers have even their dispatch channel encrypted? I'm sure there's a real need for the Secret Police of Casper! It's always good to keep people from knowing what's going on in their city. Do they also have a community policing program that includes locking the doors to the station and laughing at the people standing outside?