• 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

Ch 4 DTRS story

Status
Not open for further replies.

scanlist

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,032
Location
Greeley, CO
Ever notice any time there is a media story about DTRS they always bring up columbine.

And they had to bring up 9/11 as well. NYC's radio communications system was severely crippled during that attack.

As usual the clueless media fails to report that all agencies in Boulder county are on a common communications platform (analog conventional) and on the same band (VHF). There are no communications issues wihin Boulder County. CSP and C.U. have access as well. Why fix something when it is not broken.

I can imagine their thought of $27 Million for new radios that "go digital", work like crap in the mountains, cost 6 times more than the current radios we buy and you get busy signals on the radio? No thanks.

Speaking of Boulder County I heard testing on RED NorthWest the other night on 155.250 Pl 110.9 nice solid signal up here and the digital to analog audio quality was good.

Now why isn't "News 4" all over Denver for throwing more millions at M/A-Comm and not getting on the DTRS bandwagon? Interesting.....

Phil.
 

WX4DFD

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
309
Location
Colorado
GIVE THE BOULDER SHERIFF A PAT ON THE BACK! What is that? Analog is already interoperable? Without spending ridiculous amounts on a digital system? Seems logical to me! If you want security, go to digital encryption with a revolving key, easy enough to me. Humm...I glad to see someone sees the forest through the trees.
 

Thayne

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
2,129
Anybody know if Bob Beauprez ever cries (or has cried) over spilled milk?
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
MrSpeakEZJr said:
GIVE THE BOULDER SHERIFF A PAT ON THE BACK! What is that? Analog is already interoperable?

No kidding. It's nice to see someone who can actually see the difference between the sales pitch and reality.
 

kib669

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
111
Not to mention that CSP has to use Boulder County's system very often because their great digital system does not cover the mountain portions of the county.
 

Moosemedic

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 28, 2003
Messages
201
Location
Denver
If you noticed the interview "teaser" suggested "What if there's a huge wildfire?" Well of course, the Wildland Agencies have MASTERED the use of analog interoperability. Unfortunately they didn't follwo through on that comment, they just played on the fears of the latest residents of our state.

Take a look at ANY USFS, NPS, BLM, BIA response agencies and the territory they cover.

Kudo's to Boulder for crying foul on the entire process, and not being yet another DTRS mistake.
 

eyes00only

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
2,451
Location
Denver Colorado
As I said years ago, If Boulder was to make any change, it should be to trunk their great VHF frequencies.

Jerry
 

WX4DFD

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
309
Location
Colorado
gcheno said:
No kidding. It's nice to see someone who can actually see the difference between the sales pitch and reality.
Oh wow, you said a mouth full there, don't get me started..lol!
 

letarotor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
728
Location
Arlington, TX
Interop

Yea, you can't read a newpaper article today about public safety comms that doesn't mention Columbine or 9-11. Five years later, the NYPD, FDNY & Port Authority are still on different systems! If Boulder County wants to solve any perceived interop problems, purchase a Raytheon ACU-1000 and two or three ASTRO Spectras and stuff em into their command vehicle. When the merde' hits the fan, they will be ready. And the Sheriff can spend that $24.999 million on higher salarys and newer equipment for his deputies! I don't know about you'all, but I don't buy the statement on the DTRS web site that the DTRS has better coverage than the old VHF system all across the state. If you do, I've got some prime farmland in Cisco, Utah that I'll sell you!!!

Mark
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
letarotor said:
I don't know about you'all, but I don't buy the statement on the DTRS web site that the DTRS has better coverage than the old VHF system all across the state.
I think the distinction could be explained with the difference in site density. Sure, if DTR has 50% more towers (I don't know the exact number), of course you're going to have improved coverage. My question is, how many additional VHF sites would it have taken to achieve the same coverage? And, at what fraction of the cost of DTR? But, what do I know?
 

sargeek

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
26
Help

OK Does anyone have a "Dummies Guide" to the State DTR system. I would like to find more information reguarding the system.
 

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,327
Location
Colorado
sargeek said:
OK Does anyone have a "Dummies Guide" to the State DTR system. I would like to find more information reguarding the system.
What question(s) might you have and this also might be better as a new thread. Assuming you've already looked at the available state resources.

Jim<
 

letarotor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
728
Location
Arlington, TX
Coverage

gcheno,

Looking at the sites map on RR and FCC data for individual sites at least on the western slope, it appears they are using existing VHF repeater sites and have not added any new ones yet. 800 is much more line-of-site than VHF, and it is my opinion (based on previous experience) that the DTRS will not be able to cover the same areas in the mountains as the old VHF system without adding a bunch of additional tower sites at an exhorborant pricetag. 50% more repeater sites, however, ought to do it!!!

Mark
 

gcheno

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
70
Location
Garfield County, Colorado
letarotor said:
50% more repeater sites, however, ought to do it!!!
Again, I ask, how many additional VHF sites would it take to achieve the same (or better) results? Frankly, I think some minor tweaking of most existing VHF systems would work just as well-- for a fraction of the cost.

As for the exorbitant price tag, I can't tell you how many times I've been told that doesn't matter, because they're getting federal grants to do all this.

I haven't seen any new 800 applications in the WTB database either-- though based on what I've heard, they should be showing up soon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top