Complied List of Jurisdictions Planning New Radio Systems

[Joshheartbrake]

PG does have encryption on some talkgroups (at least, they did in the past) but not the main law enforcement TGs. The data in the RRDB isn't always 100% complete and/or accurate.

Each jurisdiction is different and generally makes their own rules (unless a higher level mandates otherwise - but that can be challenged as we've seen in other situations).

When FiRST went live in Worcester/Somerset, law enforcement talkgroups on the Somerset County system (which use ProVoice) were patched to FiRST and in the clear. At some point, because Somerset probably considers (or considered) ProVoice (digital) usage as a form of encryption (it isn't) and believes (or did believe) that this kept people from listening (it did before but not now), FiRST eventually encrypted those patched talkgroups.

Local governments can make their own decisions about increased security and encryption (but I wouldn't expect that to work the other way around).

Is it true that the county encrypts the police or is it the sherrif that decides if there agency goes encrpyted ? Sometime is argueing with me saying it has nothing to do with the sherrif .

 

[maus92]

Is it true that the county encrypts the police or is it the sherrif that decides if there agency goes encrpyted ? Sometime is argueing with me saying it has nothing to do with the sherrif .

The agency (Sheriff's Department in this case) is responsible for the policy. The (elected) Sheriff heads the agency, so that pretty much tells you who made the decision / request. I believe the Calvert County Sheriff is up for re-election, so make your views known - and vote for the opposing candidate. Write a letter to the editor of local newspaper / website. Attend county council meetings and be heard. Tell your local councilman that you demand open government and accountability. If enough people make enough noise, there's a chance the decision will not be implemented.

 

[Joshheartbrake]

The agency (Sheriff's Department in this case) is responsible for the policy. The (elected) Sheriff heads the agency, so that pretty much tells you who made the decision / request. I believe the Calvert County Sheriff is up for re-election, so make your views known - and vote for the opposing candidate. Write a letter to the editor of local newspaper / website. Attend county council meetings and be heard. Tell your local councilman that you demand open government and accountability. If enough people make enough noise, there's a chance the decision will not be implemented.

He told me that Calvert is different , the sherrif has no authority over encryption and that it was decided on before . And that it has nothing to do with the sherrifs decision , this is the captain of the public safety or whatever I talked to , but could be just Becuase he’s pro mike Evans ( the sherrif now)

 

[Joshheartbrake]

He told me that Calvert is different , the sherrif has no authority over encryption and that it was decided on before . And that it has nothing to do with the sherrifs decision , this is the captain of the public safety or whatever I talked to , but could be just Becuase he’s pro mike Evans ( the sherrif now)

My bad , he’s captain of sherrifs department so I guess he’s one under the sherrif now. Said sherrif has nothing to do with it, idk if I believe him or not though . Maybe he’s just sticking up for his boss

 

[maus92]

My bad , he’s captain of sherrifs department so I guess he’s one under the sherrif now. Said sherrif has nothing to do with it, idk if I believe him or not though . Maybe he’s just sticking up for his boss

Who does your source say made the decision to use encryption for the Sheriff's Department if it wasn't the Sheriff? The county provides the funding and the radio infrastructure, but it's up to the agencies to decide how they will make use of the technology. I don't think the Captain is being forthright.

 

[Joshheartbrake]

Who does your source say made the decision to use encryption for the Sheriff's Department if it wasn't the Sheriff? The county provides the funding and the radio infrastructure, but it's up to the agencies to decide how they will make use of the technology. I don't think the Captain is being forthright.

He said it’s a committee they have people to represent and g to the meeting for him. And that he doesn’t have the final say

 

[Joshheartbrake]

He said “Calvert is set up different. It was decided when the multi million follower project was launched that we would have a committee.”” And that they have a sherrif respresentation on the table

 

[Joshheartbrake]

What’s the point of having a sherrifs then why not just ha e a commite if the sherrif doesn’t make the final say or anything

 

[maus92]

He said it’s a committee they have people to represent and g to the meeting for him. And that he doesn’t have the final say

Find out who the committee members are, but I cannot believe that the Sheriff doesn't have to sign off on a committee's recommendation. It's possible that the county has to approve the Sheriff's request however, but that's usually just a formality if the technology has been funded. Bottom line: if the Sheriff isn't supportive of encryption for his department, then it would not happen.

 

[Joshheartbrake]

Find out who the committee members are, but I cannot believe that the Sheriff doesn't have to sign off on a committee's recommendation. It's possible that the county has to approve the Sheriff's request however, but that's usually just a formality if the technology has been funded. Bottom line: if the Sheriff isn't supportive of encryption for his department, then it would not happen.

That’s what I said! I said either way the sherrif must be for it then if he didn’t answer me and just gave my message a thumbs up , and he ignored my message other than that and didn’t give his input on it , and then the Capt just told me to probbaly Becuase the sherrif knows nothing about what’s going on with encryption .he signs the paper but he can’t control what the committee decides on .. so basicly the sherrif doesn’t have the final say on if his agency is encrypted?? Or maybe doesn’t care idk man I’m confused

 

[ThePhotoGuy]

Anyone notice any testing in Wicomico?

This is from June 12th

Wicomico County is updating our current public safety radio system to insure that all First Responders (Police, Fire and Ambulance) will have the ability to communicate with each other and with medical providers no matter where they are located in the county.

For the next few weeks you might notice Wicomico County Department of Emergency Services vehicles and staff driving around in the County. The vehicles will have county seals on their doors. They are testing our portable radio signals and communication being sent back to our 911 center.


https://www.wicomicocounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/6988/Press-Release-Radio-System-Testing

 

[guyiv]

I did in listening, but not seeing. I think they failed again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[maus92]

Anyone notice any testing in Wicomico?

This is from June 12th

Wicomico County is updating our current public safety radio system to insure that all First Responders (Police, Fire and Ambulance) will have the ability to communicate with each other and with medical providers no matter where they are located in the county.

For the next few weeks you might notice Wicomico County Department of Emergency Services vehicles and staff driving around in the County. The vehicles will have county seals on their doors. They are testing our portable radio signals and communication being sent back to our 911 center.


https://www.wicomicocounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/6988/Press-Release-Radio-System-Testing

I checked it during the MSFA convention week, didn't notice much activity other than a callsign transaction. I updated the RRDB with the current (as of that date) control channel configuration.

 

[riveter]

Wicomico P25 is up, functioning well, and not far from cutover. It will replace both the Wicomico and Salisbury legacy systems.

 

[troymail]

Wicomico STA

I kinda wondered if this tower was tall enough during my May drive by .... apparently not...

ULS License - PubSafty/SpecEmer/PubSaftyNtlPlan,806-817/851-862MHz,Trunked License - WRBU909 - Wicomico, County of

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/...tachmentKey=20389493&attachmentInd=applAttach

 

[wmbio]

From maus92,

FIRST

Allegany coverage testing to take 4 days in late July. They have more volunteers to help with testing than they had in Baltimore County. Acceptance testing in August, and anticipating cut-over / go live NLT the end of August.

Garrett Co is close to be "turned on," with target "go-live" by December, but they are prioritizing Allegany. Possible that Garrett may come up earlier. Table Rock ASR will not be live when Garrett comes online.

enjoy
wmbio

 

[troymail]

New licenses for Calvert.... 5 sites each... 2 (additional?) frequencies...

ULS License - PubSafty/SpecEmer/PubSaftyNtlPlan,806-817/851-862MHz,Trunked License - WRBX697 - CALVERT, COUNTY OF

ULS License - PubSafty/SpecEmer/PubSaftyNtlPlan,806-817/851-862MHz,Trunked License - WRBX714 - CALVERT, COUNTY OF

 

[maus92]

New licenses for Calvert.... 5 sites each... 2 (additional?) frequencies...

ULS License - PubSafty/SpecEmer/PubSaftyNtlPlan,806-817/851-862MHz,Trunked License - WRBX697 - CALVERT, COUNTY OF

ULS License - PubSafty/SpecEmer/PubSaftyNtlPlan,806-817/851-862MHz,Trunked License - WRBX714 - CALVERT, COUNTY OF

Calvert has a mess of licences (or Calvert’s licences are a mess.)

 

[maus92]

I decided to devote this morning to figuring out Calvert County's licensing labyrinth. This is the latest:

The legacy 5-site system WPFN680 has five freqs:
851.9125, 852.1375, 852.1875, 852.250, 853.350.

The existing five sites:

1. Dunkirk - Town Center Blvd
2. Sunderland - Pushaw Station Rd
3. Prince Frederick - Stafford Rd - Calvert County Jail
4. Port Republic - Broomes Island Rd
5. Lusby - Sweetwater Rd - Landfill

****

The new system is a 15-site system that will have 10 new tower sites, and replace five towers at the existing sites. The system has 12 new freqs:
854.6125, 854.6375, 856.0375, 857.0875, 857.1375, 857.6375, 858.1375, 858.5125, 858.5625, 859.1125, 859.5125, 859.5625.

The 10 new sites are licenced in two groups of five:
WQZV623:

1. Prince Frederick - Hallowing Point Rd - SHA
2. St. Leonard - Calvert Beach Rd - VFD - WT
3. Chesapeake Beach - Waterford Way WT
4. Lusby - Olivet Rd - Patuxent HS
5. Lusby - Calvert Cliffs Pwky - NPP

WQXY863:

1. Lusby - MD 2/4 - North Calvert Cliffs SHA tower
2. Prince Frederick - Cassell Rd WT
3. Huntington - Old Town Rd - VFD
4. Huntingtown - Emmanuel Chrch Rd - Power lines
5. North Beach - Dark Star Ln WT

The new towers at the existing sites have a new licence for the 12 new frequencies:
WQTP882.

The two new licences issued earlier this month, WRBX697 and WRBX714 are for two additional site freqs for the 10 new towers: 852.1875 and 852.250. Note that these two frequencies already exist on the current system. Perhaps they will aid in the cutover process? IDK.

There were a number of cancelled licences associated with the new system, so maybe there were interference or other design issues that drove that outcome. Again, IDK.

Some documentation submitted to the FCC suggest that at least some sites are up and transmitting, so someone in Calvert might want to verify this. If the wx is bad this week, I might take a roadtrip.

 

[maus92]

Calvert County P25 is online

Calvert's new P25 system is up - at least in the Dunkirk area. I was able to make my way down to south county this afternoon, and found the CC and 6 other site frequencies doing mostly housekeeping chores, and one source ID (subscriber or console) doing logins / joins. No channel grants. Will post data to the RRDB later this evening. Pretty control channel, and not much in the way of competing signals or interference around 858.xxxx - 859.xxxx. More stuff around the lower site freqs.