Ch 4 DTRS story

[rickak]

Story on Boulder's resistance to DTRS. Video of the story is also on this page:

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_256084153.html

Rick

 

[scanlist]

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.

 

[KB9LMJ]

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]

Anybody know if Bob Beauprez ever cries (or has cried) over spilled milk?

 

[gcheno]

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]

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]

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]

As I said years ago, If Boulder was to make any change, it should be to trunk their great VHF frequencies.

Jerry

 

[KB9LMJ]

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]

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]

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]

Help

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

 

[jimmnn]

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<

 

[gcheno]

"Dummies Guide" to the State DTR system.

Some people might say there isn't any other kind...

 

[letarotor]

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]

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.