• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

CDF Low Band?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BirkenVogt

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
369
Location
BirkenVogt
Is the CDF low band system (31.18 and 33.80) coming up or fading out? I am not aware of anybody using it around here at least. Does anybody have any information on it?

Birken
 

digitaljim6

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
179
Location
Stockton, CA
These are the "Chief's nets". At some point a few years ago, the command level decided they needed their own systems separate from the existing highband stuff. Each ECC has capability on at least one of them.

31.18 is licensed on:

Cahto Peak
Mt. Vaca
Loma Prieta
Bloomer Hill
Mt. St. Helena
Box Springs Mtn.
Elsinore Peak
Widow Mtn.
Chuckwalla Mtn.
Sanzta Rosa Mtn.

and 33.80 is licensed on:

Pine Hill
Lyons Peak
Strawberry PEak
Banner Mtn.
Woodson Mtn.

BirkenVogt said:
Is the CDF low band system (31.18 and 33.80) coming up or fading out? I am not aware of anybody using it around here at least. Does anybody have any information on it?

Birken
 

BirkenVogt

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
369
Location
BirkenVogt
Has anybody heard any activity on it yet? Do the CDF BCs have the radios in their trucks? Or is it for higher-ups than that even? I have not seen the antennas for it on the vehicles yet...

If they expect our local government overhead to use it too, that will mean we will have to scrounge up Syntor X's since all the other low band here is in the 45 MHz range...

Birken
 

Kirk

DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
783
Must only be for some ranger units. No coverage into SLU with those hilltops.
 

BirkenVogt

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
369
Location
BirkenVogt
If it is up and coming rather than going, then they have not gotten the sites all rolled out yet. And likely will be very slow about it because that is the way CDF has always been, and the budget is especially tight these days.

Birken
 

EMSJUNKY

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
178
Location
Bay Area, CA
Those nets are rarely used if ever. as cellular phone access becomes more populous in the rural areas of california, the chiefs nets are used more and more infrequently. CDF command channels are frequently used for command staff opperations on large incidents and the Tac Nets are utilised by various branches and divisions of an incident. I know in SCU, CZU and TCU the chiefs utilize local net to talk to the ECC for routine traffic as the local nets have a fairly reliable repeater system.

if you want to monitor the Cheifs nets for those RARE chances that they utilize them, you are better off using a CB radio antenna for the 33mhz frequencies that the chiefs nets utilize. (this antenna also works great for the CHP's 42 mhz frequencies, but it doesnt perform too well for the 151 and 170 mhz frequencies that CDF and USFS utilize)

hope this helps
 

BirkenVogt

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
369
Location
BirkenVogt
How long have they been in existence, is what I am trying to get at? Are they old and their use declining, or did CDF decide they needed another system to carry some of the load?

Birken
 

EMSJUNKY

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
178
Location
Bay Area, CA
they have been around for a while, as many fire agencies have been moving away from the low band vhf (33-45 mhz) for a a good decade now. I dont know the exact start, but they arent used too much any more
 

mkewman

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
1,567
Location
Sacramento County, California
someone told me that public safety is being slowly pushed out of the lowband, so that the military can use lowband... now this person isn't the most informed individual and probably doesn't know much about radio stuff, but this would make sense considering that chp is looking to move on up.

so why is cdf still using lowband???
 

BirkenVogt

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
369
Location
BirkenVogt
PS is not getting pushed out of low band by anybody...they are just moving away from it because

1. Hand helds are lousy on low band due to the long antenna length needed
2. The noise level on low band is increasing due to all the computer garbage and other electronic crap that puts out interference.

Birken
 

selgaran

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
397
Location
CM98dn
3. Some manufacturers, traditionally the first choice for public safety, have stopped making low band equipment.
 

trooperdude

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
1,502
Location
SFO Bay Area
selgaran said:
3. Some manufacturers, traditionally the first choice for public safety, have stopped making low band equipment.
And as those with prejudice against "foreign" manufacturers accelerate into retirement, equipment like Kenwood is slowly making it's way into the state radio systems, so that may not last.
 

BirkenVogt

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
369
Location
BirkenVogt
selgaran said:
3. Some manufacturers, traditionally the first choice for public safety, have stopped making low band equipment.
That's true, but probably due to the first two factors, otherwise it would still be in demand, and they would still make it.

Birken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top