How much would a STATEWIDE California Trunked System cost?

Status
Not open for further replies.

karldotcom

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
30
Location
Burbank, CA
with every public safety and government agency on it....perhaps they can't build one because they would run out of talkgroups?

I am thinking the kind of system like the South Carolina / Palmetto system I read about in Monitoring Times.
 

mdulrich

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
1,628
Reaction score
16
Location
Van Wert, Ohio
There are many variables to putting in any system, especially a statewide system.

One of the biggies would be, is there going to be coverage for portables or will it be designed for mobile coverage? Also, what % of coverage is desired. For example 98% coverage would cost more than 95% coverage.

A system for California would AT LEAST be in the high hundreds of millions.

Mike
 

digitaljim6

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockton, CA
From the "It'll never happen" department, the money isn't the issue - Arnold could make another movie. The converage/penetration problem isn't the issue - add more sites; see above for more money.

What is?

You'd never get all of the rulers of all the little kingdoms to give up control. Many cities can't get their own police and fire departments to combine dispatching facilities (Stockton, e.g.), let alone radio systems.

Getting all of the state, county, city, fire district, transit district, mosquito abatement district, water district, school district, etc. entities to cooperate would be like trying to heard cats into a swimming pool.
 

digitaljim6

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockton, CA
Do what's been done in the past. Take TV channels. That's how 470-512 MHz (chs 14-20) was born (thanks LA County) a few decades ago and that's how 700 MHz came to be (chs 60-69).

Just think of the amount of unused spectrum that will be around once all of the TV broadcasters turn off their analog transmissions in the next few years.

Two or three six-meg chunks of narrowband channels properly scattered around the state might be enough to do it. You get about 800 7.5 KHz channels per 6-MHz analog TV channel. Take a traditional cellular approach (low-level, low power, many sites, reuse channels) and away you go!
 

digitaljim6

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockton, CA
What's the maximum number of talk groups in a system using the Project 25 trunking specification?

Even if the state bought a proprietary system, I'm sure they could talk the vendor into doing custom firmware for whatever was needed (especially if it means the vendor gets a $2+ billion contract!).
 

bigRoN18

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Aug 12, 2001
Messages
141
Reaction score
18
Location
Roseville, CA
Besides all the political reasons preventing a statewide network is the vast terrain of California. Different frequencies work better in different areas. For example, in a heavily wooded, hilly terrain, you'd need lower frequencies than wide-open spaces. In an urban environment, lower frequencies don't work well... the higher the better (to a point, obviously). You may be able to set up a network that covers the majority of POPULATED California, but the price would be rediculously expensive to cover ALL of California adequately.... unless you went satellite, and then you'd have issues with indoor transmission. They'd need a lot of mobile repeaters and some terrestrial repeaters too. That would be very expensive.

Now, if they DID build a statewide network... using a network similar to iDEN or MIRS, I doubt they could run out of talkgroups. This would allow each unit to be individually addressed and grouped. I'm sure that if the State of California was going to invest in such a system, manufacturers would bend over backwards to setup a system that would work just like most USERS would like. I'd think it would be more like a cellphone network rather than traditional trunked radios and all of us would be out of luck trying to listen to it with any scanner because ALL users would be encrypted. The root of such a network would be each radio has it's own ID address. The whole thing will be managed by networked computers. Each radio can individually reach any other radio, if you know their number, but when it comes to "channels", they are managed by the dispatchers. They can create unlimited amount of channels. It's kind of like these forums, you can create as many of these forums on the internet as the imagination of people will allow. In practical useage, a city would set up a list of STANDARD channels and each radio under the local communications center would be programmed with what ever channels they wish them to have access to. For example, a street sweeper's radio will only be able to transmit on their city public works group of channels. Should they TRUELY have a need to communicate on a channel that all the police are talking amounst themselves on, then the police dispatch supervisor can temporarily give access for that radio to talk on their channel.

It's all a possibility... nothing is impossible. No new technology really needs to be invented for this to occur... should you have the money. It is just prohibitively expensive.
 

WayneH

Forums Veteran
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Messages
7,555
Reaction score
95
Location
Your master site
A P25 trunked system would cover their needs. California would probably need to be divided up with regard to talkgroups. I believe for P25 it's like 65k+. That's not enough for California. It may seem like it but whenever a system is installed everyone and their brother gets several talkgroups (one or two only used).

No other network alternative (eg., iDEN, etc) would be "Public Safety safe."

-Wayne
 

northzone

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
502
Reaction score
5
Location
Northern California
I think in time it will happen. Look at the licenses for the 700mhz band, California has hundreds of frequencies in this band. The state now has many systems that cover nearly the whole state; CHP, CDF, Caltrans, Fish & Game, OES (fire &law), Parks, DOJ, and more. Most of these seperate systems are linked via the state microwave backbone (3,000 miles of microwave currently) It costs more to build and maintain all these seperate systems than a unified system.

I was told that CDF said they would not leave VHF, they are willing to go trunked but only VHF. They do too much inoperate with local and federal fire and do not want to have to carry several radios. So the state design is basically for a VHF and other (most likely 700mhz) system that would cover the state.

Many states now have statewide systems including some that have lots of mountains, ie. Colorado. Time will tell.

And yes I argee with Wayne, it would be P25.
 
Last edited:

Ben96cal

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
Location
Livermore, Ca
re: ca trunking

Some people said lack of frequencies. Why not just just merge existing trunk systems to start, then fill in the gaps with new 800 frequencies?
 

digitaljim6

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockton, CA
There are actually very few state systems that are "linked". Most systems that do connect to the state's microwave network are localized and do so only for control of remote stations by their dispatch centers (like CHP, Caltrans, DOJ), transport of voting receiver traffic back to the dispatch center (like CHP), or connection of simulcast sites (like CHP).

There are some talkgroup "patches" between a local agency's trunked system (Marin county for example) and the local CHP system. They may or may not use the state's microwave and wouldn't qualify as a statewide "linked" system whether they did or not.

Off-hand, the only statewide "linked" systems I know of are CESRS (153.755), OES fire (154.16 and 154.22), and the CLERS system. You can make "calls" between anywhere and anywhere in the state within a system if you know the proper code to "dial", but I'm not aware of a way to link between these systems.

Can't remember if state DOJ uses the state's microwave for "linking" or only for remote control. I think it is only for remote control.
 

WayneH

Forums Veteran
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Messages
7,555
Reaction score
95
Location
Your master site
Ben96cal said:
Some people said lack of frequencies. Why not just just merge existing trunk systems to start, then fill in the gaps with new 800 frequencies?
Merge existing trunked systems? The only trunked systems the State operates are the State Prison systems (which are low-budget trunked systems and basically useless for a Statewide application) and the Caltrans systems, of which there are only four I can recall. Those could be merged into a P16 trunked system but that wouldn't work for this situation.

With P25 the existing Prison 800 channels, P&R 800 channels, DOT 800, and CDF VHF could all be combined. P25 trunking can make an existing system with 800 and VHF seamless (compared to SmartZone).

The biggest difficulty in a Statewide system is the design. The State is lucky it has its backhaul network (I've got a map of all sites and their links and it's impressive) to support something so large in nature.

-Wayne
 

Cary

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern CA
California Statewide Radio System

The State of California has had a committee for over 10 years. The latter plan called for a combined trunked/conventional system using VHF/UHF/700mhz and I believe 800mhz. The various bands would be interconnected when units are within reach of the system but simplex would be available for tactical operations away from the system or for agencies with specific needs. A PDF file describing the system is at:

www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/PDF/PSRSPC_FS2a/$file/PSRSPC_FS2a.pdf
 

jeffreyinberthoud

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
0
Location
BERTHOUD COLORADO
state 800 system

Hello to all My old freinds in California

Jeffrey here from berthoud Colorado (formerly from Hollister california)

I just thought Id chime in on this topic

Colorado system is about half done, east slope and plains are covered but mountains are next lots of work there and many millions of dollars here are some links so you guys can get an idea just how complex it would be keep in mind Denver and Colorado springs the two major metro services have there own systems yes its a power struggle here too

here is the state system link

http://www.radioreference.com/modules.php?name=TRSDB&sid=329
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top