They have to go to each transmitter site and reprogram the transmitter. If this is an issue with a repeater input causing this why dont they just disable the repeat function and use strictly as a base station.
Erie County P25 System
- Thread starter MarkPalmer
- Start date
- Status
So when Grappy said this, it sounds like maybe they did disable it already?
"The interference is from the “former” Millcreek West Repeater. This frequency was repurposed for the new radio system for analog paging.
The former Millcreek West Repeater was disabled yesterday afternoon. I have not heard any feedback from our first responders.
We will follow up with our radio vendor (EF Johnson). "
"The interference is from the “former” Millcreek West Repeater. This frequency was repurposed for the new radio system for analog paging.
The former Millcreek West Repeater was disabled yesterday afternoon. I have not heard any feedback from our first responders.
We will follow up with our radio vendor (EF Johnson). "
Looks to be a new med channel filing:
FCC Callsign WREJ280 (ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY)
FCC Callsign WREJ280 (ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY)
www.radioreference.com
Drachen_Fire
Member
Sounds like they just cut off the repeater that used to use that frequency.
They disabled the OLD (original) repeater. There is still an active repeater using the Millcreek Fire West frequency pair. That's why the interference is still coming in on the paging channel.
No. Because the repeater input will be guarded. So the repeater won't be retransmitting the signals you are presently hearing.
My guess would be that the County isn't using wireline or a tone remote to access each paging transmitter site, but instead the dispatch consoles are connected to a mobile radio in the shack outside the 911 Center to transmit to the paging sites wirelessly (using the repeater setup mentioned to have the signal rebroadcast at each transmitter site). It would be a more cost-effective option especially since it is only being used for one-way communication. It also eliminates error as the dispatcher wouldn't have to simul-select every paging transmitter before dispatch - they only have to select the mobile radio outside. There wouldn't be any need to have wireline going to each transmitter to just transmit and not receive anything back.
Last edited:
This is how I understand the paging system. They *might* have used this design as part of a backup scheme if the TRS or MW fails. It would be interesting to know if the subscriber radios are programmed with access to this channel pair in any of its zones.
Last edited:
I can attest that the radios we have, which are Emergency Management radios, do not.
Last edited:
Drachen_Fire
Member
We can say that it's this way due to redundancy or whatever all we want. Everyone knows the only reason that it's like that is because it's cheaper.
They really should at the very least put a DPL on the input.
They really should at the very least put a DPL on the input.
John Grappy says the interference has been fixed as of this afternoon. He also mentioned, re TAC TG's, that the dispatch talk groups are countywide, and can be monitored throughout Erie County; the tactical talk groups are zone specific.
I'm curious how they can limit traffic to specific zones (areas?) within a single simulcast site - not sure if that is possible. Perhaps what he means is the TAC TGs are organized into their respective zones on the subscriber radios. Resources in the east county use the East Zone, resources in Erie use the Erie Zone, etc. Zone in this case actually means the channel (TG) template in the radio that defines what TG is assigned to a knob position..
Last edited:
Drachen_Fire
Member
It is a simulcast ring, but that ring is split into specific zones. Those zones can operate however they are provisioned.
Yea, not sure how that would work, or why you would want to subdivide a simulcast site into physical zones. It wouldn't save frequency resources because the same frequency could not be reused simultaneously on another member tower site for a different talkpath without the potential of interference. Maybe it's an EFJohnson thing that saves hardware resources, IDK.
Drachen_Fire
Member
IIRC, EFJ's Phase 2 implementation will reuse the same frequency on a different zone, just on the opposing timeslot.
Which is the way the works with other vendors, in theory - that how you get more talkpaths in Phase 2 systems. I'm trying to understand if there is any efficiency or purpose to segment a simulcast site into zones. It seems to me to be a disadvantage in that nothing is really gained by doing so. Perhaps if the system is backhaul limited, but that doesn't seem to be the case with MPLS MW.
Last edited:
Drachen_Fire
Member
Sure, it's efficient. In a phase 1 system, that wouldn't work at all, hence the emergence of zonal structures
You don't need a "zonal" structure for Phase 2. I live in an 8 frequency Phase 2 simulcast cell with 14 talkpaths, and no "zones" within the simulcast site.
Drachen_Fire
Member
I've also heard that it somehow saves wear and tear on individual repeaters.
I suppose, but at the expense of situational awareness.
- Status
Similar threads
