Edmond's Transition to State 800

[PolarBear25]

If that logic is true, we should not need any jails because there should not be any crime — after all, that's what cops are for ...

Good God, PB. Sometimes I feel that, for you, rational discourse is a weapon you need to put down before you shoot yourself in the foot.

Agreed?

Did someone say something about Edmond going 800 a few pages ago?

Whatever..

 

[PolarBear25]

So I guess Edmond's Old 800 TRS will go away to like Shawnee's??

 

[Chaos703]

I like how you're agreeing with a guy who is trying to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[car2back]

Grants=Tax payer money

All money the gov't has is taxpayer money. I'd much rather see the federal gov't giving it to Law Enforcement for equipment of any kind than sending it overseas.

 

[freqscout]

The problems that I see with the 800 system for everyone is that there is the "all your eggs in one basket" theory working hand in hand with Murphy's Law as well as the forcing small agencies to play or get cut off thing.

If the DPS trunking network goes down then there is a possibility of losing eveything.

Now you can't say that, "It's a Motorola. It can't happen," because if you are using anything computer controlled (or even just electronics in general) there is the chance of it crashing. Unless of course you were using a Mac (Mark, WoodyRR). Okay, then it would probably still crash at some point.

I would be a bigger proponent one banding the entire state, off of a trunking system. Trunking is not an end all-save all (I know that there are certain people cringing right now). Trunking is simply a way of combining several users to one smaller set of frequencies (80 user groups on 10 channels instead of 80 users on 80 separate channels.). The fine tuning and features of the system can allow for improved coverage in some instances. You can also add bells and whistles.

The problem I also see is that we are forcing the small town players in the rural areas to go trunking or lose the ability to talk to their cooperating agencies. FEMA dollars are handed out based on real threat possibility as well as number of affected people. There are about 1,400 people in Locust Grove, OK. Probablility of them getting all necessary federal dollars for radios: slim. Especially if there is some other type of equipment that needs replacement.

So you see that there is the possibility of creating more problems than solutions for some smaller towns. If the gov't IS going to buy them radios then there also needs to be a plan to get the gov't to sustain/replace them along the way (upgrades, maintenance, etc). Federal/State dollars might buy today but definately might not tomorrow.

I am not a Texas fan by any means, but there seems to be a bit of simplicity and genius to their plan. VHF for everyone.

 

[PolarBear25]

I like how you're agreeing with a guy who is trying to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Ok.. Whatever..

 

[PolarBear25]

All money the gov't has is taxpayer money. I'd much rather see the federal gov't giving it to Law Enforcement for equipment of any kind than sending it overseas.

And to that I agree..

 

[PolarBear25]

The problems that I see with the 800 system for everyone is that there is the "all your eggs in one basket" theory working hand in hand with Murphy's Law as well as the forcing small agencies to play or get cut off thing.

If the DPS trunking network goes down then there is a possibility of losing eveything.

Now you can't say that, "It's a Motorola. It can't happen," because if you are using anything computer controlled (or even just electronics in general) there is the chance of it crashing. Unless of course you were using a Mac (Mark, WoodyRR). Okay, then it would probably still crash at some point.

I would be a bigger proponent one banding the entire state, off of a trunking system. Trunking is not an end all-save all (I know that there are certain people cringing right now). Trunking is simply a way of combining several users to one smaller set of frequencies (80 user groups on 10 channels instead of 80 users on 80 separate channels.). The fine tuning and features of the system can allow for improved coverage in some instances. You can also add bells and whistles.

The problem I also see is that we are forcing the small town players in the rural areas to go trunking or lose the ability to talk to their cooperating agencies. FEMA dollars are handed out based on real threat possibility as well as number of affected people. There are about 1,400 people in Locust Grove, OK. Probablility of them getting all necessary federal dollars for radios: slim. Especially if there is some other type of equipment that needs replacement.

So you see that there is the possibility of creating more problems than solutions for some smaller towns. If the gov't IS going to buy them radios then there also needs to be a plan to get the gov't to sustain/replace them along the way (upgrades, maintenance, etc). Federal/State dollars might buy today but definately might not tomorrow.

I am not a Texas fan by any means, but there seems to be a bit of simplicity and genius to their plan. VHF for everyone.

Yes F.S. your right on with this one, Maybe Oklahoma can go to a UHF for everyone.
or UHF backups state wide for the 800 T.R.S.

What do you think F.S.??

 

[freqscout]

Well I would be more attached to the idea of incorporating the V-Tac and U-Tacs into the DPS architecture and then permanently linking them to an SMA on that tower where the talkgroup side is only active if an 800 user is on the associated TG. This would allow for a fixed statewide option that does not interfere with the normal operation of the system. There are a handful of channels each band, so there can be multiple accesses on the same band if there are multiple mutual aid scenarios in the state.

The reason that I choose SMA and not RMA is because the RMA's are not universal. There is the central and NE groups and not everone has both. This would also allow for the use of the statewide access power of the DPS system with the alternate band. This would provide for all of the SW sites to be active on the V-TAC1 if there is someone on the right SMA affiliated to that tower. Thus increasing the range and scope of the operation almost by itself. From that there would be control from the central controller as well to give more/less access to the alternate band based on needs and focus. This way you could eliminate small town interference from the NE if there is an event in the SW and someone up NE is listening.

 

[car2back]

...Maybe Oklahoma can go to a UHF for everyone.
or UHF backups state wide for the 800 T.R.S.

Just think of all the taxpayer money that would cost! From what I can tell, most agencies (atleast in the Tulsa area) have their old pre-trunking radio networks as a backup. EMSA has the UHF meds, TCSO, and Creek Co SO has their old VHF, OHP has lowband, etc, etc.

 

[PolarBear25]

Well I would be more attached to the idea of incorporating the V-Tac and U-Tacs into the DPS architecture and then permanently linking them to an SMA on that tower where the talkgroup side is only active if an 800 user is on the associated TG. This would allow for a fixed statewide option that does not interfere with the normal operation of the system. There are a handful of channels each band, so there can be multiple accesses on the same band if there are multiple mutual aid scenarios in the state.

The reason that I choose SMA and not RMA is because the RMA's are not universal. There is the central and NE groups and not everone has both. This would also allow for the use of the statewide access power of the DPS system with the alternate band. This would provide for all of the SW sites to be active on the V-TAC1 if there is someone on the right SMA affiliated to that tower. Thus increasing the range and scope of the operation almost by itself. From that there would be control from the central controller as well to give more/less access to the alternate band based on needs and focus. This way you could eliminate small town interference from the NE if there is an event in the SW and someone up NE is listening.

Sounds like A good ideal to me, Or just have U-TAC T.G.s and V-TAC T.G.s state wide. Right??

 

[PolarBear25]

Just think of all the taxpayer money that would cost! From what I can tell, most agencies (atleast in the Tulsa area) have their old pre-trunking radio networks as a backup. EMSA has the UHF meds, TCSO, and Creek Co SO has their old VHF, OHP has lowband, etc, etc.

Like F.S. said Use U-TACs and V-TACs

 

[WX5JCH]

They better do something quick, our 4 ambulances are out of compliance for not having direct communications with OKC's EMSA...

 

[PolarBear25]

OK.. Well ok..

 

[clegett]

There is some definite comfort when I'm in Texas (where I'm from and volunteer EMS occasionally) and some jerk tries to run me off the highway out in the middle of nowhere and I can reach down and click my radio over to Texas Law 1 and call for any available law enforcement. Just about anywhere I am, I get a response. Also VERY useful for when you come across "the big one" accident in BFE and don't have cell service. The local SO is almost always monitoring Texas Law 2.... I don't have that in OK, and quite frankly, it scares me to think about interoperability. I talked to a Norman Fire Assistant Chief because I'm coordinating a special event. We're bringing in two helos for the event and will be talking to them on statewide VHF fire. NORMAN CAN'T TALK ON THAT. They don't have the radios! All they have in the engine is the 800 MHz radios.... Interoperability is NOT "Well, we'll move to this system, if you want to be able to talk to us, time to drop some cash."

 

[PolarBear25]

There is some definite comfort when I'm in Texas (where I'm from and volunteer EMS occasionally) and some jerk tries to run me off the highway out in the middle of nowhere and I can reach down and click my radio over to Texas Law 1 and call for any available law enforcement. Just about anywhere I am, I get a response. Also VERY useful for when you come across "the big one" accident in BFE and don't have cell service. The local SO is almost always monitoring Texas Law 2.... I don't have that in OK, and quite frankly, it scares me to think about interoperability. I talked to a Norman Fire Assistant Chief because I'm coordinating a special event. We're bringing in two helos for the event and will be talking to them on statewide VHF fire. NORMAN CAN'T TALK ON THAT. They don't have the radios! All they have in the engine is the 800 MHz radios.... Interoperability is NOT "Well, we'll move to this system, if you want to be able to talk to us, time to drop some cash."

Ok, What is Texas Law 1 and Texas Law 2??

 

[car2back]

Ok, What is Texas Law 1 and Texas Law 2??

Just off the top of my head it sounds like a mutual aid channel LE agencies in Texas use.

Oh wait, it's in the database! Who woulda thought :roll:
http://www.radioreference.com/modules.php?name=RR&aid=899

 

[Secret_Squirrel]

LOL @ the above post!

 

[peterjmag]

I'm going to put this thread back on track. I found another temporary for Edmond and here is the link...

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applFreqSum.jsp?applID=3946449

P.J.

 

[KK5FM]

I'm going to put this thread back on track.

Thank goodness!

Interested in the Edmond 800 System.
Not interested in speechifying.