From today's Denver Post

[jimmnn]

Was that question for me? Because I have no idea. What did you hear?

But you are the "DTRS_Master" and seemed to know it all.

Jim<

 

[DTRS_Master]

But you are the "DTRS_Master" and seemed to know it all.

Jim<

I have my opinions, yes - just as everyone else does here. Do I know it all? NOPE.

I can tell, however, that people here don't like to have their opinions/ideas scrutinized!

And.....at least I have enough backbone to not take the side of the "popular" opinion all of the time. :roll:

 

[Thayne]

I can't find "Explicate" in the dictionary--what does it mean? My kid threw out my Ebonics dictionary, so I'm SOL on that.
1. If all your eggs are in one basket and you trip over a road apple, then chances are all the eggs will get broken--If you let your wife carry half of them then her eggs will be safe unless she drops them while laughing at you.
2. If a bad guy fishes the Glock out of my pocket, he might shoot me if I don't have the KelTec in my pantsleg
3. If the DTRS network infrastructure goes down, please explicate what happens??

 

[DTRS_Master]

I can't find "Explicate" in the dictionary--what does it mean? My kid threw out my Ebonics dictionary, so I'm SOL on that.

The verb "explicate" is not 'ebonics', rather it is plain old everyday english. Right off of dictonary.com:

ex·pli·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kspl-kt)
tr.v. ex·pli·cat·ed, ex·pli·cat·ing, ex·pli·cates
To make clear the meaning of; explain. See Synonyms at explain.

Sheesh......the un-educated. :roll:

3. If the DTRS network infrastructure goes down, please explicate what happens??

I will be happy to explicate on what happens, but only if you tell me what portion of the DTRS network infrastructure failing you are speaking of. There are numerous components to an ASTRO-25 network, so I can't speak on what happens if I don't know what part of the network you are talking about having fail.

A question for you, Thayne: What is your preferred public safety communications solution?

 

[mpg0515]

Why are you trying so hard to defend the DTRS? It is a piece of crap, and "almost" everyone knows this.

Speaking of problems, the PVH Site went down last night for about 15 minutes, leaving all Fort Collins traffic on the Horsetooth site, along with every other damn agency that doesn't need this site. Lots of busy signals and problems communicating. Since when is a "good" system set up right when Douglas County Sheriff's Office can be heard regularly on the Buckhorn site, being almost 120 miles away from the target coverage area. Hmmm, makes a lot of sense, but then again I like to see my tax money go into purchasing crap that does not work.

 

[Thayne]

Master, I apologize, I looked again and found EXPLICATE.
Mea culpa-- my only defense is that I was thinking about the guacamole being prepared in the kitchen when I looked before.
If the microwave goes down, the fiber gets chopped by a wayward directional bore, and the juice goes off in a blizzard--(Maybe the diesel fuel for the generator gelled up)--it's hosed
My preferred public safety communications solution is simply as many options as possible;ie; DTRS, Existing VHF, Amateur repeaters, Nexthell, Tin cans and string; And most important of all get rid of as many egotistical bureaucrats as possible from positions of authority. (Fat chance)
Now you happy? Mista Masta

 

[jimmnn]

DTRS_Master any idea why Walton Peak was off the air Saturday from 0450 to about 1100?

Jim<

 

[DTRS_Master]

If the microwave goes down, the fiber gets chopped by a wayward directional bore, and the juice goes off in a blizzard--(Maybe the diesel fuel for the generator gelled up)--it's hosed

Not really - it's called site trunking. Not great like wide area trunking, but something's better than nothing.

And power failures - come on - they are not native to trunked systems. Conventional systems don't work any better without power. :roll:

My preferred public safety communications solution is simply as many options as possible;ie; DTRS, Existing VHF, Amateur repeaters, Nexthell, Tin cans and string;

Hmmm...interesting. Agencies can't afford to have three or four radios in the car and maintain wide area communications on all of those bands, so your solution isn't really realistic. So let me rephrase my question: What is your preferred option for primary public safety dispatching and radio interoperability state-wide?

And most important of all get rid of as many egotistical bureaucrats as possible from positions of authority. (Fat chance)

Okay, i'm apparently completely missing the boat on these. I have heard so many comments here about how the bureaucrats, politicians, etc. and how god-awful they are. What are these claims based on?

Now you happy? Mista Masta

I guess not.

 

[DTRS_Master]

DTRS_Master any idea why Walton Peak was off the air Saturday from 0450 to about 1100?

Jim<

Nope - I don't work on the system, so how am I supposed to know?

I bet I can fathom a guess that it was a power outage. And again, what can you do about that?

 

[DTRS_Master]

Why are you trying so hard to defend the DTRS? It is a piece of crap, and "almost" everyone knows this.

Because I believe that it is a great solution that will improve as time goes on. It's not even close to complete, and the sites will probably darn near double in number over the next few years.

Great argument, though. "It's a piece of crap." Pretty easy to say, but apparently it is a hard position to defend because nobody has yet made a compelling argument on why it isn't a good system. They complain about the band - no 800 MHz isn't that great, but the buildout isn't complete so the overall coverage can't be evaluated yet. They complain about the cost of radios, then the bureaucrats. But nobody has said anything about the features of the system that make it so bad. It has all of the same failure opportunities as any other system, but it has a larger coverage footprint across the state, and permits interoperability. I just don't get it.

Speaking of problems, the PVH Site went down last night for about 15 minutes

...and when was the last time you had that site go down? Systems are admittedly not spec.'d for 100% up time. NO vendor will sell a system to anyone under that guise. I would bet that the up time for that site has several 9s. And guess what - the traffic switched sites and the users had communications. Had it been a conventional system and the site went down, the users would have had....simplex maybe? Seems to me that some communications is better than none.

Since when is a "good" system set up right when Douglas County Sheriff's Office can be heard regularly on the Buckhorn site, being almost 120 miles away from the target coverage area.

Not sure - but that is something that can be dealt with at an administrative level to find out what radio or radios is affiliated with that site and to contact that user to find out why it's necessary to do so. On a larger scale, they would have to balance disallowing a talk group at a site or sites with the potential need for that talk group to be on that site (long-lived pursuit, etc.). I think that a policy of letting talk groups roam is better than restricting them. Restricting the radios would take away the state-wide coverage feature of the system.

But i'm sure that if they restricted radios to a few sites that everyone here would be complaining about that, too. I could just hear it: "What's the use of a statewide system if I can't roam!?" :roll:

Hmmm, makes a lot of sense, but then again I like to see my tax money go into purchasing crap that does not work.

Again, elaborate on "crap that does not work". You can't press the PTT button on your radio and get a channel grant at least 95% of the time in your coverage area? Is that what you're telling me?!

 

[mpg0515]

Because I believe that it is a great solution that will improve as time goes on. It's not even close to complete, and the sites will probably darn near double in number over the next few years.

Great argument, though. "It's a piece of crap." Pretty easy to say, but apparently it is a hard position to defend because nobody has yet made a compelling argument on why it isn't a good system. They complain about the band - no 800 MHz isn't that great, but the buildout isn't complete so the overall coverage can't be evaluated yet. They complain about the cost of radios, then the bureaucrats. But nobody has said anything about the features of the system that make it so bad. It has all of the same failure opportunities as any other system, but it has a larger coverage footprint across the state, and permits interoperability. I just don't get it.



...and when was the last time you had that site go down? Systems are admittedly not spec.'d for 100% up time. NO vendor will sell a system to anyone under that guise. I would bet that the up time for that site has several 9s. And guess what - the traffic switched sites and the users had communications. Had it been a conventional system and the site went down, the users would have had....simplex maybe? Seems to me that some communications is better than none.



Not sure - but that is something that can be dealt with at an administrative level to find out what radio or radios is affiliated with that site and to contact that user to find out why it's necessary to do so. On a larger scale, they would have to balance disallowing a talk group at a site or sites with the potential need for that talk group to be on that site (long-lived pursuit, etc.). I think that a policy of letting talk groups roam is better than restricting them. Restricting the radios would take away the state-wide coverage feature of the system.

But i'm sure that if they restricted radios to a few sites that everyone here would be complaining about that, too. I could just hear it: "What's the use of a statewide system if I can't roam!?" :roll:



Again, elaborate on "crap that does not work". You can't press the PTT button on your radio and get a channel grant at least 95% of the time in your coverage area? Is that what you're telling me?!

Because I believe that it is a great solution that will improve as time goes on. It's not even close to complete, and the sites will probably darn near double in number over the next few years.

Actually you are right about the completion of the DTRS, however the sites yet to be built are on the Western half of Colorado. This does not really do any good for the mountains of Larimer and Boulder Counties.

But nobody has said anything about the features of the system that make it so bad. It has all of the same failure opportunities as any other system, but it has a larger coverage footprint across the state, and permits interoperability. I just don't get it.

Features, what features? Again does Durango need to talk to Sterling, No! It does the same thing as any other system except it is maintained by the State of Colorado. So when sites go down, some state employee sitting in his chair (in Denver) has to drive up to wherever the problem is and fix it, when a local radio tech could be there to repair his own system in a matter of hours not days. Also there are several frequencies in the VHF band, that have always been there (NLEC,FERN etc.) that have been available for agencies to use that they probably didn't even know about. But instead the state needs to get everyone on these "high tech" radios so they can all talk to each other when they were able to do it before. I would also like to compare the coverage footprint from a site on the same mountain on different bands i.e. VHF, 800mhz. 800 does not even come close to what VHF does and that has been proven time after time again around the state. Failure? I think I have seen the DTRS fail about 10 times what any conventional system around here has.

But i'm sure that if they restricted radios to a few sites that everyone here would be complaining about that, too. I could just hear it: "What's the use of a statewide system if I can't roam!?"

This happens on all sites that I have seen. It is yet another part of the system that makes it a piece of crap. Why do I need to have FCPD affiliating with sites in Jackson County? Answer, I don't. And everyone wonders why there radio is giving them "busy signals" a lot of the time. When Broomfield PD was on a foot chase the other night, there radios were affiliating with Horsetooth site for about 30 minutes. This lead to some very angry Weld agencies saying "I did not hear what you said," "repeat" and again "repeat." Again why an agency 60 miles away from the target coverage area, needs use of that site?

Again, elaborate on "crap that does not work". You can't press the PTT button on your radio and get a channel grant at least 95% of the time in your coverage area? Is that what you're telling me?!

They might have access 95% of time, but it doesn't mean you were heard. The other 5% is not exceptable, especially when emergencies occur and lives are at stake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[scanlist]

I just don't get it.

That's obvious.

 

[Troop]

it's a lot better than when I first started...no packset, using the outside speaker for radio traffic...i'll gladly take the 5% failure rate over the 100% failure rate when you're "in the blind" w/o a radio.

 

[scanlist]

There is still plenty of "Old Tac" VHF usage out there.

Phil.

 

[Troop]

There is still plenty of "Old Tac" VHF usage out there.

Phil.

True..we use it up north alot, but we're slowly transitioning to our simplex channel on 800.

 

[DTRS_Master]

Actually you are right about the completion of the DTRS, however the sites yet to be built are on the Western half of Colorado. This does not really do any good for the mountains of Larimer and Boulder Counties.

You may want to double-check with your source on that. A very reliable source of mine said that there are plans to put several of the sites on the eastern plains, including the Boulder area.

Features, what features? Again does Durango need to talk to Sterling, No!

Ah so many, emergency call, PTT-ID, radio inhibit, relative system security, seamless roaming, dynamic frequency blocking, quality encryption audio - need I go on?

Does Durango need to talk to Sterling? LOL Probably not! I agree. This is why they probably don't have each others' primary dispatch talk groups programmed into their radios - but they do have MAC channels in their radios, just in case....

Does the State need this coverage? Yes, and for many different applications. Is this coverage useful/beneficial to MANY other agencies? Again, yes! Regionalized or localized systems will have interoperability problems near the borders of the system - which is the same problem that DTRS has near the state borders. However, this is minimalized overall because much of the state is void of that problem, vis-a-vis the regionalized or localized systems.

It does the same thing as any other system

When you say "any other system", what are you talking about? I can think of several differences from several other systems, but I want to make sure that I blow holes in this statement from the right angle.

except it is maintained by the State of Colorado.

Wrong - not completely. While much of it is maintained by the State, there are several parts that are maintained by other agencies.....

So when sites go down, some state employee sitting in his chair (in Denver)

Wrong again. There are a few different locations around the state that have radio shops to send technicians from. Not one per county, but it is not true that all techs. are sent from Denver.

Also there are several frequencies in the VHF band, that have always been there (NLEC,FERN etc.) that have been available for agencies to use that they probably didn't even know about.

So how are NLEC and FERN beneficial if the agencies don't know about them? Additionally, those are only two simplex mutual aid channels, as opposed to the five that are available in 800 MHz - and even more will be added with 700 MHz.

But instead the state needs to get everyone on these "high tech" radios so they can all talk to each other when they were able to do it before.

This is not a true statement throughout the state. There are several areas where they can't interoperate because they are on different bands. As I said earlier in this thread, once all public safety agencies are consolidated onto one band - radio interoperability will be at its' best. I wouldn't think that you would disagree with me on that aspect, would you?

I would also like to compare the coverage footprint from a site on the same mountain on different bands i.e. VHF, 800mhz. 800 does not even come close to what VHF does and that has been proven time after time again around the state.

I heard of one such study that was done and 800 MHz did quite well. They put a 100 watt VHF conventional station co-located at one of the DTRS sites - and guess what - it was pretty much a wash between the two.

Where has this been proven "time after time again around the state"? I could throw up a VHF repeater on the fringe of 800 MHz coverage and say that VHF is much better, and vice-versa. That is comparing apples to oranges. I have only heard about the one aforementioned apples-to-apples test. I'd like to know what agencies did this comparison that you are talking about.

This happens on all sites that I have seen. It is yet another part of the system that makes it a piece of crap.

So the *system* is a "piece of crap" because you believe that it is not *administered* correctly? Wow, what a stretch that is.

Why do I need to have FCPD affiliating with sites in Jackson County?

...and what sites in Jackson county might you be talking about? It would be hard to have radios affiliating with sites in Jackson county.

But, come on. Jackson county is not THAT far away and it is possible that FCPD could mutual aid, or be involved in a chase that went out to there. As I said before - if they disallowed talk groups at most of the sites and something happened where they needed that site - you all would be complaining about that, too. :roll:

And everyone wonders why there radio is giving them "busy signals" a lot of the time.

I haven't disagreed that there are some capacity issues in the Denver and Fort Collins areas....

This lead to some very angry Weld agencies saying "I did not hear what you said," "repeat" and again "repeat."

Are you describing partial transmissions made, or "digital" transmissions, during that time period? Those would not be problems associated with busies....

Again why an agency 60 miles away from the target coverage area, needs use of that site?

Again, see my statement above. 60 miles isn't too far away, especially with a mountain-top site. They shouldn't be there too often, anyway - so it really shouldn't be that big of a deal. Plus, who's to say that it wasn't someone who wasn't a BPD unit, but had Broomfield programmed into their radio, causing the talk group to be brought up?

The other 5% is not exceptable, especially when emergencies occur and lives are at stake.

Well, I can tell you with much confidence that the 95% standard is what all trunked systems live by across the nation. If that many public safety communications professionals find that standard acceptable, the hobbyists on this board should be able to live with it, too.

 

[DTRS_Master]

That's obvious.

I may not get what you were talking about, but you don't get it - overall.

 

[DTRS_Master]

it's a lot better than when I first started...no packset, using the outside speaker for radio traffic...i'll gladly take the 5% failure rate over the 100% failure rate when you're "in the blind" w/o a radio.

Whoa - look at that. A user is talking good about DTRS.

Again - I value and give credibility to public safety professionals over hobbyists.

 

[Thayne]

Masta,
A few of us yahoos sure caused you to type "AGAIN" a lot--It's been fun

 

[DTRS_Master]

Right..... :roll: