And there is no requirement for them to change. No narrow banding requirements. What they have works in most places.My viewpoint I think analog has been working soo much better then digital
The Low Band system offers the best value per dollar spent.. I don't think anyone that operates a Statewide 800 MHz system is doing it as cheaply as the CHP System....Yeah, compared to most provinces, California is small. You got me there.
California has some "Statewide" VHF networks, but they don't cover the whole state. Just too many deep valleys for it to work well enough. Add in there are too many silos that agencies don't want to share systems. Maybe some day that'll change, but I don't see it happening any time soon. CalFire has their system. Department of Fish and Game has their system, etc…..
VHF Low band works.
And then getting enough clear VHF pairs would be difficult. I'm trying to get a few pairs for a system upgrade, and it's difficult. Not impossible, but a lot of the pairs we are finding are very close to existing systems where we'll have to share sites.
Budget is an issue, too. That's a lot of money for new sites, new repeaters, etc. Would take a lot of years to roll out a system that big. Simply replacing the existing CHP radios is being spread out over 3 years. Building a new statewide multi-channel VHF High network would take a very long time.
At low band, the propensity for signals to propagate much further than intended is pretty great. Two low band signals desired and undesired with PL tones and carrier heterodyne mixing will be annoying and the FM capture will slowly cause one or the other to come through. With P25 the audio packets will get lost and you will have a lot of unintelligible garbling and racket if anything at all.Since when does noise only affect digital signals?
.Let me make a prediction. This is the ONLY change you'll POSSIBLY see happen with CHP in the future (notice that this isn't certain)...
When the California C.R.I.S. system is complete, CHP can simply subscribe (and spend millions purchasing equipment).
My late hubby was a civil engineer for a small county on the west side of the Sierra Nevada. He had some duties related to electronic sites. Sometimes because the county had comm facilities at sites, where county roads would be used to access sites, where new roads were built to access sites or to upgrade access to sites and being part of the permitting process when facilities were installed. Some of the county's sites were on private land, some on USFS land, some on BLM land and even one in a national park. He said that so many people assume that if coverage is needed for higher frequencies, such as the 700-950 range requiring a bunch more sites that those can get built. This is not realistic as there are a huge number of constraints in building new sites. There are environmental issues, access issues, land ownership issues, neighborhood issues, power source issues, public agency policies and resource management plans, geology issues . . . . . . I don't recall all the issues he dealt with. Comms in the mountains are quite different than they are in flat lands in cities and the Central Valley of Calif. People too often assume that additional sites can be installed to support whatever technology public agencies, private companies and individuals want to use. Hubby said that is a very poor assumption. He told me that the CHP looked into going to higher frequencies in San Diego County, the 450-470 range (?) and that they would need 4 times the number of sites to provide the same coverage VHF Low was already providing. Somewhere in his home file cabinets I think he printed thiese study. San Diego County has some interesting topography but compared to the Sierra it is pretty gentle so imagine CHP trying to go to a 700 meg statewide system. If they just needed 4 times the sites for 450-470 meg can anyone grasp what 700 would need. If they needed 6 or 8 times the number of sites they might not be able to build half to three quarters of those. There were many places in our county that got some major recreation visitation with paved road access, commercial power, small resorts, etc. that don't have any cell phone coverage and likely never will due mainly to environmental issues, mostly scenic intrusion. People who live or visit the mountains don't want to look at ugly towers on every horizon.And there are not enuf VHF channels available for CHP to cover the state. Try to get even a couple freqs in a populated area. Good luck with that... There are WAY more people than BC. Many thousands of miles of paved roads more than BC. To cover CA in anything other than Low Band they would have to add hundreds of sites. "Someday" they might do it. But I think that is more like 20 years away. Just my opinion.
I moved from Calif. in the fall of 2018. Hubby and I lived in a small Sierra foothill county. We had some neighbors who worked for Caltrans and some were CHP officers. The Caltrans supervisors had low band radios in the pickups and the large dump/plow trucks did not. The Caltrans people said they had those low band radios to communicate with the CHP. In good snowstorms the coordination between the two agencies was intense and we enjoyed listening to their ops. Large equipment and their operators did not have CHP radios. That was 1 1/2 years ago so something could have changed. Are you seeing low band antennas on large trucks/graders/loaders now?And there is no requirement for them to change. No narrow banding requirements. What they have works in most places.
CalTrans is using a lot of 800MHz now, but all their trucks I see around me, even the brand new ones, all have low band whips and Kenwood TK-690's installed.
Apparently Peddler Hill isn't providing full coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have applied for licenses for 3 roadside repeaters. I just researched the use of roadside repeaters. Caltrans is linking them to the nearest microwave equipped site using 450-470 meg frequencies. The sites are then put on a voter system, so that the operator doesn't have to switch channels when it isn't clear which of the multiple repeaters is going to cover the spot. I did some searching on the Caltrans site and found some interesting info about their comm systems. I don't know if I could find the website links I used now.Leviathan should cover the east side of Carson Pass pretty well.
Peddler should do well on the West side. I can imagine some issues around Kirkwood, but maybe Peddler gets in there OK.
88 is our preferred east/west route since it avoids bay area/Sacramento traffic. 80 is usually a big mess with unprepared people and accidents.
50 is usually a mess with all the people going to Tahoe and the ski resorts. Last time I took 50, it took 18 hours to get to Carson City from the Monterey area. Usually 88 gets us across pretty quickly, even in the worst storms.
With 108 and 120 closed in the winter, there are not a lot of options.
In a jam once, I did go up to 70 and across. Feather River is mighty pretty in the winter.
I was referring to VHF low, not 800. While I'm sure VHF low won't cover anything, it's probably still a decent site.Apparently Peddler Hill isn't providing full coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have applied for licenses for 3 roadside repeaters.
Yeah, some of what I've seen on 80 and 50 scares me. If some of it wasn't so reckless, it would be entertaining. Sort of like watching the antics at the launch ramp. Good cheap entertainment.Hubby always said, "if 88 isn't open, we are not going." He didn't like the potential circus of I-80 and didn't like U.S. 50 on any day of the year.
yeah 4 and 108 are my favorites. Some day I'm going to spend a few days camping up there.EDIT, sometimes our best bet was to go over CA4, Ebbetts Pass, depending on where on the eastside we were bound for. Now, in Arizona, I'm memorizing the "Beeline Highway."
I think you made an error in your second sentence. I think it should have read "While I'm sure VHF low won't cover everything, it's probably still a decent site." Caltrans had a low band system of remote base stations that communicated to the mobiles on simplex. They probably had a central processing system with a voter that tied a number of repeaters in together. The vehicle operator did not change channels to select certain peaks or talk simplex to other units. They would have greatly benefited with tone selected repeaters to extend car to car coverage and let everyone within range of a repeater to able to hear what mobiles were saying to their dispatch centers, Traffic Management Centers, etc. It is possible that they would not have needed any additional sites. Also they would be able to have both Caltrans and CHP in each and every radio. It would not be a panacea, as low band handhelds really stink.I was referring to VHF low, not 800. While I'm sure VHF low won't cover anything, it's probably still a decent site.
As for CalTrans and 800, I'm sure there is some logic to it, but I'd have loved to see them leverage low band, add more sites. Not an issue getting frequencies. I've got an 800 trunked system and an 800 conventional repeater at work, and It wouldn't be my choice for wide area communications.
Yeah, some of what I've seen on 80 and 50 scares me. If some of it wasn't so reckless, it would be entertaining. Sort of like watching the antics at the launch ramp. Good cheap entertainment.
88 is pretty nice with a few inches of fresh snow. When the plows have cleared it, drivers tend to get a bit cocky. Drivers in their fancy Suv's with summer tires and all wheel drive forget that it won't help them stop. Or worse, some kid in a lifted truck with mud tires. Watched a kid with a brand new Toyota pickup truck, with no plates yet, plow into the rail trying to rush out of Kirkwood and get in front of me coming west on 88. Felt sort of bad for him, but he floored it in the snow and didn't realize he wouldn't be able to stop on the packed snow/ice.
yeah 4 and 108 are my favorites. Some day I'm going to spend a few days camping up there.