Char\Meck TRS NCHP RX problem...

[Phillipsc84]

Here is my problem and why i'm having it is beyond me. I have been listening to the Charlotte TRS for a while and everything is fine except for the NCHP talkgroups. For some reason on the Scanners I have I can only hear the dispatch side of the comms. The scanners i have used are: Pro95, Pro96, Pro97, Pro2096. I can't figure out why I can't hear both sides. Anyone who may have some help I could sure use it.

 

[Newshound]

The NCHP talkgroups for the Meck TRS are simulcast broadcast of the low band frequency the NCHP uses currently to dispatch. You will only hear the troopers talk when they are using their 800 hand-held radios. If they are in the vehicle, they are talking back on their low band radios which are a different frequency than the dispatch channel.

Hopefully this will all go away when the VIPER system is completed in the Meck Co. area. They will be going all 800.

 

[Phillipsc84]

Makes sense. Seems like though that I can only hear an open line on the lowband Freqs. I'll have to keep monitoring. Just otm ake sure they are 42.38, 42.58 right?

 

[kg4pbd]

You may not hear much from Ft. Mill on the low band frequencies. 42.38 has been weak from South Charlotte for awhile now. As far as hearing the mobiles on 42.58 you'll be very limited. I can hear Gaston/Cleveland and Asheville as well or better than Monroe on low band.

The Viper vs NCSHP low band sticky on this forum explains some of this in much more detail.

 

[jeffmulter]

A couple of weeks ago, I was talking with a trooper about the Viper system.

The trooper indicated that, although their current 800 radios were being replaced with better units programmed with the Viper sites and talkgroups, it was his understanding that the district would continue using the CMPD system for dispatching.


Jeff Multer

 

[CCHLLM]

That's correct, Jeff. The Metrolina system is a shared infrastructure system. The Wake/Durham/Orange infrastructures and the GSO/W-S/HiPoint/Burlington infrastructures as well as several others will also work that way. Everybody needs to remember that VIPER is a statewide shared frequency and infrastructure plan. State talkgroups will be distributed over a large host of shared infrastructures. In fact, there will be sites and infrastructure shared by Palmetto and VIPER and local users on the borders according to the projected frequency/talkgroup/site plans.

 

[jeffmulter]

>> In fact, there will be sites and infrastructure shared by Palmetto and VIPER and local users on the borders according to the projected frequency/talkgroup/site plans.

I sure would like to see a copy of those documents posted on RadioReference !


Jeff

 

[CCHLLM]

That would be interesting indeed, and if the process is like most, there's a smidgen in this document, and a smudge in that one, and two smidges in this one, followed by another issue smudge there. The process has really been an evolutionary process as I understand it. You know the drill, two agencies need coverage in the same area but don't have two sites, so they go in together on one site, agreeing to share the site and some of the infrastructures. It would be interesting to see the actual MOU for the sites themselves. I heard second hand info that Charlotte/Mecklenburg is sharing some sites in SC in and around the International Trade Zone and down Hwy 49. If that's true, there's no reason that other political boundaries, geographical and human, can't be bridged. The evolutionary processes of the Palmetto system and VIPER have managed to bring together more than one set of entitites to the benefit of both. It's been a very good thing in a lot of respects, and the bean counters really like it when co-funding eliminates duplicate funding and reduces the single-responsibility costs to each entity.

 

[Phillipsc84]

Tell me what you think or if i'm just crazy. But what I would like to see is a good VHF SmartZone system like the Char\Meck VIPER\Palmetto systems. I'll admit im still a fan of the VHF\UHF stuff because it jsut seems to work better. But i'd like to see one turned into a good trunking system. Theres room and you don't have to worry about Nextel coming and taking it away....just yet.

 

[delta85]

Unfortunately, there is no space in the VHF or UHF band to provide for a large county-wide trunked system. The public safety VHF channels don't offer the right spacing to make good repeater pairs and work in a combiner. The ALMR system in AK worked out perfectly because the PS VHF channels were near empty and the Feds kicked in their spectrum. That system wouldn't have worked without the state/local/fed cooperation.

WX4CBH, I haven't heard that there are any sites for the Char/Meck system in SC. I haven't heard that Pal800 would share with VIPER either. The only way that they could share any infrastructure, other than just a tower, would be to upgrade both systems to Omnilink. At this point the Pal 800 SZ4.1 controller is max'ed out. As well, Pal800 is starting the migration path to 7.0 with the buildout of the new Charleston County simulcast system.

 

[jeffmulter]

Off the top of my head, the only shared tower site I can think of will be on the north end (N.C. side) of the Buster Boyd Bridge crossing the Catawba River at Lake Wylie.

Char / Meck was operating a five-frequency site on that tower, and York County was licensed for a simulcast site there also.


Jeff Multer

 

[delta85]

Jeff,

You are right. The Char/Meck site is at the Red Fez club tower and is the Red Fez IR site. That York County license has expired. They won't be using that site.

 

[CCHLLM]

You guys are closer to this NC/SC thing than I am for sure. There was some discussion about four years ago, maybe more, that as Palmetto was upgraded and expanded and the NC systems were building out and expanding, there was the possibility of sharing advantageous sites in the proximity of the border. I don't think it was frequency or repeater sharing, it was more like sharing the site facilities at selected locations. That would say to me towers and buildings perhaps, maybe even a combiner and antennas might be shared, but not the actual operating repeaters and frequencies. At this point, I don't know what ever came out of the "conversations", but it interests me from the taxpayer standpoint. It also simplifies the possibilities of systems interconnections should that become a desirable thing.