They should have checked that out before the switch. For the Houston Public Works system, it appears that this either did not happen or was rushed for some reason.
City of Houston Project 25 TRS
- Thread starter Thunderbolt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sticky
- Status
They should have checked that out before the switch. For the Houston Public Works system, it appears that this either did not happen or was rushed for some reason.
They said we had 7 or 8 towers that we were running off of. The problem I see is that they said by the final switch we would have 48 towers total. So we tried to utilize 1000+ runs in 24 hrs with only 7 or 8 out of 48 towers up ?
At least when it's done it should be amazing... hopefully.
At least when it's done it should be amazing... hopefully.
I maybe behind on the times just a bit. Are these other towers some kind of voting relay system? Or is there something that should be clear to me that isn't? And if there is, what is that? Again I am some what concerned about the safety of the firefighters.
Thanks,
Mike Dupree
Thanks,
Mike Dupree
I suspect that the plan for 48 towers is an attempt to deal with the load issue on the TxWARN system. If HPD and HFD jump on the system, that will add several hundred additional users to the system. If you add up all the current agencies on the system and those that might join in the future, you are looking at potentially thousands of new users, which means even more radio traffic that the system has to deal with. I suspect that a better (and cheaper) solution would have been to add additional frequencies to the existing sites.
Okay let's get a couple of things clarified here. First, this initial move and testing phase was done on the Houston Public Works system, not the actual system that is to be used eventually. That said, I think it is safe to assume that the Public Works department(s) of Houston, don't need the coverage (especially in building) needed by both Fire and Law Enforcement agencies. I am sure that the Public Works system will work just fine for sanitation workers and golf pros :wink: but the system was never designed for public safety use.
Now, the number of towers on the TxWARN system, which is designed for public safety use, deals mostly with penetration (at least in the urban areas) and some with capacity. It should be obvious that if you are a mile from a tower, the signal will have less trouble getting into a building than if you are 5 miles from a tower (assuming approximately the same physics for the site height, ERP, etc.) And more importantly, a tower 1 mile away will have a lot less trouble hearing a HT from inside a building than the tower 5 miles away. This may well be the reason that the initial Houston Public Safety system was so short lived and the sites that were there were moved to the TxWARN system both expanding capacity and coverage with the addition of those sites.
Now this initial move to the 800 MHz HouPubWrks system was somewhat of a surprise to me, I had initially thought they were just using it so the FD folks could be trained and get used to the new radios and system capabilities. I was wondering, during the training times, why I was hearing various stations and engine companies out doing in building communication tests. I didn't understand it then and still don't (based on what I said above). The bottom line here is that in no way should the performance the HFD experienced during the short period it used the HouPubWrks system be indicative of what it should see on the final system implementation. And (IMHO) they should not go back to the "test" system again unless they need more training.
I suspect that last week was the last time that HFD will ever be on the Houston Public Works system. It seems to make a lot more sense to go from their current UHF channels directly to TxWARN, as opposed to jumping on one 800 MHz system only to jump to another one a few months later.
As for all the encryption rumors, there might be a simple explanation for some of them. As I mentioned in an earlier post, some people (radio techs included) confuse P25 digital for an encryption method. To the crooks out there, digital might as well be, considering that the scanners needed to monitor P25 are fairly complicated to use and expensive.
As for all the encryption rumors, there might be a simple explanation for some of them. As I mentioned in an earlier post, some people (radio techs included) confuse P25 digital for an encryption method. To the crooks out there, digital might as well be, considering that the scanners needed to monitor P25 are fairly complicated to use and expensive.
Crooks & Radios
For the most part, I agree with you regarding the decreased likelihood of "crooks" being able to program a digital scanner. During my nearly 23 year of experience as a mental health professional in the Texas prisons system, I administered many intelligence & objective personality tests to male & female offenders. You might be surprised by the intelligence of some offenders.
For example, the ones that escaped from the Connally Unit possessed a working knowledge of radio communications. They used a scanner & two-way radios during their time on the ground. Since this escape occurred during December of 2000, P25 application was not as widespread as it is today.
I have also met quite a few Ham radio operators inside prison over the years. I don't know what magazines are currently being restricted from general population, but they might be able to subscribe to magazines like Monitoring Times (even with officers censoring portions of the magazine). In the past, I have seen FCC communication letters to various offenders. I also observed several offenders who possessed copies of "73" magazine when it existed.
Furthermore, the Windham Independent School District was at the forefront of teaching offenders how to program computers thinking it might reduce criminal behavior. However, quite often, criminal thinking errors still persisted in the presence of a higher level of education. In essence, the public was left with a better-educated convict. Not all offenders land in prison as a function of substandard intelligence and/or a lack of education. Many intelligent offenders failed to obtain their education because they opted for the "easy way out." Impulsivity, risk-taking, & criminal thinking patterns play a significant part in criminal behavior.
I can also say this. Some offenders are quite resourceful in the criminal pursuits. They might: a) steal a digital scanner that has already been programmed for their target area; b) ask someone in RR to send them a file of programmed frequencies for their target area; or c) pay someone at Radio Shack to program their radio. The possibilities are endless. In fact, I have often questioned, "how many crooks access RR?" In essence, if there is a will there is a way.
Food for thought.
For the most part, I agree with you regarding the decreased likelihood of "crooks" being able to program a digital scanner. During my nearly 23 year of experience as a mental health professional in the Texas prisons system, I administered many intelligence & objective personality tests to male & female offenders. You might be surprised by the intelligence of some offenders.
For example, the ones that escaped from the Connally Unit possessed a working knowledge of radio communications. They used a scanner & two-way radios during their time on the ground. Since this escape occurred during December of 2000, P25 application was not as widespread as it is today.
I have also met quite a few Ham radio operators inside prison over the years. I don't know what magazines are currently being restricted from general population, but they might be able to subscribe to magazines like Monitoring Times (even with officers censoring portions of the magazine). In the past, I have seen FCC communication letters to various offenders. I also observed several offenders who possessed copies of "73" magazine when it existed.
Furthermore, the Windham Independent School District was at the forefront of teaching offenders how to program computers thinking it might reduce criminal behavior. However, quite often, criminal thinking errors still persisted in the presence of a higher level of education. In essence, the public was left with a better-educated convict. Not all offenders land in prison as a function of substandard intelligence and/or a lack of education. Many intelligent offenders failed to obtain their education because they opted for the "easy way out." Impulsivity, risk-taking, & criminal thinking patterns play a significant part in criminal behavior.
I can also say this. Some offenders are quite resourceful in the criminal pursuits. They might: a) steal a digital scanner that has already been programmed for their target area; b) ask someone in RR to send them a file of programmed frequencies for their target area; or c) pay someone at Radio Shack to program their radio. The possibilities are endless. In fact, I have often questioned, "how many crooks access RR?" In essence, if there is a will there is a way.
Food for thought.
I worked for TDCJ for many years before I left. You do have that percentage that will know how to program a digital scanner. But certainly not think that most will know how to do so. I not think even most know what one is.
Your right they will just steal one or get someone else to program it for them. That is well in line with how a criminal thinks. Even though there are things that we all can do to prevent this. I only use portable scanners in my vehicle and I hide them when I'm not in my vehicle. I refuse to help people with scanners when I not know if there a law-abiding person or not. And that is with the fact that I work at Walmart currently. All I do is tell them to go to Radio Shack. Maybe to much information, true.
Mike Dupree
Your right they will just steal one or get someone else to program it for them. That is well in line with how a criminal thinks. Even though there are things that we all can do to prevent this. I only use portable scanners in my vehicle and I hide them when I'm not in my vehicle. I refuse to help people with scanners when I not know if there a law-abiding person or not. And that is with the fact that I work at Walmart currently. All I do is tell them to go to Radio Shack. Maybe to much information, true.
Mike Dupree
Let's not forget how much these radios cost. Sure, it's one thing to be able to know how to program one, but it's somewhat pointless if you don't have the $400-$600 to fork over for one--even on eBay. And yes, they could steal one, but chances are they wouldn't know how to use it. They could try going online and finding the manual, but I doubt most crooks would go to the trouble of doing that. And as for going here and requesting a file, that requires a programming cable. If the scanner's a Uniden, that would be somewhat of a problem because RadioShack doesn't sell cables for those. Also, it would be somewhat of a crap shoot because the crook probably wouldn't know if the scanner's owner even has the correct system programmed into it. If the crook takes it from, say, a car, there's a 50/50 chance that the driver of said car might not even be from the area, and thus the scanner would probably not even have the local police channels on it.
Any radio tech that confuses P25 and encryption shouldn't be a radio tech...in my opinion.
I know this probably a kinda stupid question, but what's the difference between X2 and X2-TDMA?
Am I being blind, or has anyone seen any articles or reports about this system from any of the Houston-area media outlets in the past month or so? I haven't been able to find any.
No, but since the system they will eventually move to has been in place now for quite a while, why do you think it is newsworthy at this point. When the PS folks abandon their current UHF system it might be worth a mention but until then how much excitement do you think it will generate telling the public that the sanitation crews have a new radio system. 
Houston Chronicle Radio Article
When I was reading the Houston Chronicle online, I stumbled on this story:
Public safety radio crews fan out testing the frequencies - Houston Chronicle
When I was reading the Houston Chronicle online, I stumbled on this story:
Public safety radio crews fan out testing the frequencies - Houston Chronicle
Yep. I saw that one too. Unfortunately, you beat me on posting it here. Anyway, if you go through the story, there is absolutely NO mention of encryption. I suspect this article puts THAT debate to rest. Also, it appears the article is talking about the Public Works system. If that's the case, then HPD and HFD will be moving to that system, and not TxWARN. (I know, someone's going to yell at me about how the Public Works System is part of TxWARN, but since it's listed separately on the Harris County DB page, it might as well not be).
I didn't know encryption on the MAIN DISPATCH channels was ever debated???
Now ALL the other channels is a different matter
Quote from the article...
" That's why all main dispatch channels also will simultaneously broadcast to a different system, implemented this year, that's used by other city services like garbage truck drivers, Sorley said."
It specifies "main dispatch".
" That's why all main dispatch channels also will simultaneously broadcast to a different system, implemented this year, that's used by other city services like garbage truck drivers, Sorley said."
It specifies "main dispatch".
- Status
