Inyo National Forest Radio Frequencies.

[silverspy]

Hello everyone,
I recently came across some information that indicated that the Frequencies for the Inyo National Forest may have changed or be slated to change. I was wondering if anyone in the Region had feedback about this. I am now in the Pacific Northwest (at least for now) and have no way of verifying if they have been changed or not. If they have, it would seem to indicate a slow trend of Region 5 Forests changing and/or expanding their frequencies, with the LTBMU being the first, Los Padres 2nd, Modoc 3rd and now Inyo, if this is in fact the case. I can tell you that there have been quite a few changes in the past 2 or 3 years in Regions 1,2,4 and 6. Anyway, any feedback or information would be greatly appreciated, since I am currently a long way from Region 5 and can't currently monitor there. Thanks.

 

[kma371]

Well you can post what you have here and see if others can verify them

 

[QDP2012]

The US Forest Service - Inyo National Forest (CA) RR Wiki page has some information you might find useful. It was updated only a few months ago.

Hope this helps,

 

[silverspy]

Information I have says that 173.800 is now North Forest Net and 173.2625 is now South Forest Net, but unable to listen to verify. Bill

 

[QDP2012]

You might want to send a PM to Exsmokey, and ask him to join this conversation. He has been one of the primary contributors to the above Wiki page and others related to it.

Hope this helps,

 

[silverspy]

Thanks,
already did, received reply from his wife is that he is still hospitalized and at this time, unable to respond to any messages, although I did pass along the Frequencies in my PM.

 

[inigo88]

Ah shoot. Feel better Fred!

 

[ecps92]

it might be awhile, not sure if he has a laptop yet or has made it home from the Hospital yet...I'm sure he will try and play catch-up when his health allows tho

You might want to send a PM to Exsmokey, and ask him to join this conversation. He has been one of the primary contributors to the above Wiki page and others related to it.

Hope this helps,

 

[ecps92]

Well back in 2012, 173.8000 did become Fire North, but I've only seen folks report on the Sweetwater Repeater (107.2 in/out)

I had seen south in a few documents as 173.8375 but again that was 2012 also
and No Reports at all

Information I have says that 173.800 is now North Forest Net and 173.2625 is now South Forest Net, but unable to listen to verify. Bill

 

[silverspy]

Thanks

 

[f40ph]

INF North slated for change 2017, INF South changes by Sept 2016, Service net was already changed on 9/29/15.
All I can verify is that the input freqs of the "old" pairs become the output freqs on the "new".

 

[f40ph]

...it would seem to indicate a slow trend of Region 5 Forests changing and/or expanding their frequencies, with the LTBMU being the first, Los Padres 2nd, Modoc 3rd and now Inyo, if this is in fact the case.

To expand on this further: Their stated intent is to structure all R5 repeater pairs to transmit (output) on the high side and receive on the low side (input freq). TMU, Modoc and LPF are perfect examples of the completed changes. In a nutshell, repeater outputs in the 170-173 range with input freqs in the 164-169 range. There are a couple exceptions to the exact freq ranges given above but from what I've seen 95% of the forests will fit this model.

 

[silverspy]

Thanks for the info. So, if what you are saying is correct, which I trust that it is, they will still have to change the Frequencies of 8 Forests in Region 5 to comply with their "stated intent". I find that very interesting. On some forests, this will include both "Forest", "Admin" and "Service" Nets. This still leaves me slightly confused, because Stanislaus recently changed their "Admin" Net, and the old input was originally higher than the old "Output". As far as I know, we still don't know what the "new input" to the Stanislaus "Admin" Net is. Do you happen to know what they changed the new Inyo "Service Net" input to?
Thanks,
Bill
Also as an additional thought, I noticed that in other regions, some of the recent changes do not put the Frequency pairs in compliance with the "input higher" standard", as I thought was an NTIA mandate, but in fact does exactly the opposite or just simply entirely changes the Pair. I've also noticed that more and more "old outputs" are becoming Local Flight Following Frequencies on "simplex".

 

[SCPD]

The frequencies of the North and South Nets remain the same and I've verified that in the week I've been home from the hospital. The Service Net has been changed according to the document I received while I was in the hospital. I have mentioned in other threads that I revised the Wiki pages based on that document. The South Net will be changed next year and the North Net in 2017. I've been unable to verify the Service Net change as traffic is at a minimum this time of year.

 

[SCPD]

Thanks for the info. So, if what you are saying is correct, which I trust that it is, they will still have to change the Frequencies of 8 Forests in Region 5 to comply with their "stated intent". I find that very interesting. On some forests, this will include both "Forest", "Admin" and "Service" Nets. This still leaves me slightly confused, because Stanislaus recently changed their "Admin" Net, and the old input was originally higher than the old "Output". As far as I know, we still don't know what the "new input" to the Stanislaus "Admin" Net is. Do you happen to know what they changed the new Inyo "Service Net" input to?
Thanks,
Bill
Also as an additional thought, I noticed that in other regions, some of the recent changes do not put the Frequency pairs in compliance with the "input higher" standard", as I thought was an NTIA mandate, but in fact does exactly the opposite or just simply entirely changes the Pair. I've also noticed that more and more "old outputs" are becoming Local Flight Following Frequencies on "simplex".

Again, the changes are dictated by the range of frequencies the existing frequencies fall in. I've provided information on other California threads that define those ranges and once the existing frequencies are examined relative to these specified ranges the changes make more sense. It is not just a matter of outputs being the higher of the pair, it is what frequency range those existing frequencies fall in.

I haven't seen any official correspondence or plans regarding the Redbook driven frequency changes in other areas of the country. Some NF's in California changed frequencies in the last 2-3 years and still had the upper frequencies as the input, however, the new frequencies fell into the repeater operations ranges of frequencies and avoided use of the middle or simplex range. The most recent changes have involved only a flip of input and output to bring the system into compliance. The Forest Service was using a lot of frequencies in the simplex range, especially for outputs. Example, the Inyo NF's use of 168.125 and 168.725 for repeater outputs. This requires they obtain new frequencies for both their North and South Nets. Absent using the middle range of the band, they could have flipped their input and output frequencies as the existing inputs were in the repeater output range, but the existing outputs are in the simplex range.

Getting local nets, be they Park, Forest, BLM District or National Wildlife Refuge based, into compliance opens up the possibility of changes to some of the national systems, such as the NIFC cache system and the national air to ground system.

As for existing repeater output frequencies being kept for local flight following uses, this can only happen when those frequencies fall within the middle or simplex range in the band. In this case the move to have compliance with the NTIA direction may see an increase in development of local dispatch area flight following "systems." I place systems in quotes as these may consist of one mountain top remote base.

We may be looking at the greatest number of frequency changes for federal agencies since they started moving up from VHF Low in the 50's and sometimes 1960's in many cases.

 

[ecps92]

Anyone looking for the New Template it's in the Wiki under NTIA
Federal VHF/UHF Channel Plans - The RadioReference Wiki

Not everyone has move/migrated, as Fred has indicated and it might be slow move working out interference issues etc

As an example here in New England one rather large Federal Agency is still in the old UHF channels vs the new +9 Mhz as well as a few others, it takes time, especially to program all those Portables, Mobiles, Base Stations, never mind get out to the Repeater sites

Again, the changes are dictated by the range of frequencies the existing frequencies fall in. I've provided information on other California threads that define those ranges and once the existing frequencies are examined relative to these specified ranges the changes make more sense. It is not just a matter of outputs being the higher of the pair, it is what frequency range those existing frequencies fall in.

I haven't seen any official correspondence or plans regarding the Redbook driven frequency changes in other areas of the country. Some NF's in California changed frequencies in the last 2-3 years and still had the upper frequencies as the input, however, the new frequencies fell into the repeater operations ranges of frequencies and avoided use of the middle or simplex range. The most recent changes have involved only a flip of input and output to bring the system into compliance. The Forest Service was using a lot of frequencies in the simplex range, especially for outputs. Example, the Inyo NF's use of 168.125 and 168.725 for repeater outputs. This requires they obtain new frequencies for both their North and South Nets. Absent using the middle range of the band, they could have flipped their input and output frequencies as the existing inputs were in the repeater output range, but the existing outputs are in the simplex range.

Getting local nets, be they Park, Forest, BLM District or National Wildlife Refuge based, into compliance opens up the possibility of changes to some of the national systems, such as the NIFC cache system and the national air to ground system.

As for existing repeater output frequencies being kept for local flight following uses, this can only happen when those frequencies fall within the middle or simplex range in the band. In this case the move to have compliance with the NTIA direction may see an increase in development of local dispatch area flight following "systems." I place systems in quotes as these may consist of one mountain top remote base.

We may be looking at the greatest number of frequency changes for federal agencies since they started moving up from VHF Low in the 50's and sometimes 1960's in many cases.

 

[silverspy]

Thanks again for the clarification,
Bill

 

[silverspy]

Just wanted to let you know that the document I came across lists 173.2625 to be slated as the new Inyo NF, South Net output. I don't know if this is a typo in the document or not, but I just wanted to let you know. Also, part of the confusion being that the document lists the assignment as being current, but as you stated, they are still using the old Nets. Take care,
Bill

 

[kma371]

Db was just updated to reflect a 173.8375 future south repeater

 

[silverspy]

Thanks, do you happen to know anything about the Wiki/Database "discrepancy" regarding the Modoc NF Admin Net Frequency. As far as I know, the info in the database reflects the old Admin Net. Do we know if the Wiki info is the new Modoc Admin Net? Thanks,
Bill