Iowa Statewide Interoperability Communication System (ISICS)

[ORION_NE]

I haven't put them in my Unication, but I can see where that would cause problems.

I checked my personal notes and I show 01-019 to be STARCOMM

Site 1-019 is STARCOMM

 

[maus92]

For practical purposes, it is an ISICS site as it uses the ISICS sysid and site numbering schema.

 

[burner50]

Misleading Talkgroup Labels

This weekend I was copying traffic on TAC 6D for speed checks. Normally under labels usage of Suffix of D would be a direct frequency. But since Iowa has an Area D this is not a direct TAC channel. A bit misleading, I guess I never noticed before.

That name isn't misleading... It matches the operations for the agency that is using it and it is an accurate name.

 

[MCWKen]

Next is what sounds like an industrial user with at least 13 radio ID's showing for TG 4191 and 4190.

In addition, TG 4192 was logged yesterday. So far, 16 different RID's in the 15000134 to 15000177 range has been noted.

 

[maus92]

The 1-019 site entry is still incorrect as there should not be two primary control channels... Someone within range please run Unitrunker or Pro96com to identify the current control channel and alternates - and verify site frequencies. SDRTrunk would also work.

 

[mws72]

That name isn't misleading... It matches the operations for the agency that is using it and it is an accurate name.

I know it's for Area D, but a suffix of D is normally reserved for direct operation of a channel.

 

[west-pac]

I know it's for Area D, but a suffix of D is normally reserved for direct operation of a channel.

Thank you for your concern. Every one understand both sides of this. How much further would you like to discuss this? By the way, that's a rhetorical question.

You have throughly beat this horse.

 

[burner50]

That’s the biggest problem with absolute rules. Nothing is absolute.
Here is a quote from the radio reference database administrator handbook.

“Always name an agency, category, subcategory or trunked system with the clearest, most specific name that is appropriate.”

Just because your opinion is that the letter “D” should stand for direct, does not make it align with the database naming conventions.

“TAC 6D” aligns with the naming convention for the rest of the ISP talk group naming for this system and I believe that it matches what is in the actual radios.

NORMALLY “direct” transmissions don’t use a TRS talk group, so it should be understood that the talk group labeled TAC 6D would be a tactical channel numbered 6 in area D and not a direct frequency.

 

[MCWKen]

“TAC 6D” aligns with the naming convention for the rest of the ISP talk group naming for this system and I believe that it matches what is in the actual radios.

NORMALLY “direct” transmissions don’t use a TRS talk group, so it should be understood that the talk group labeled TAC 6D would be a tactical channel numbered 6 in area D and not a direct frequency.

I had noted that both Troopers and Dispatch use the reference of "3D" or "TAC 6D", and in one case last week, "ETAC10D" (Cedar Rapids dispatch). This follows what I had noted in the Mason City area.

Allocation of talkgroups are the responsiblity of the ISICS Board, while naming conventions are made within the individual agency (DPS for example). So IA TAC2 and R6TAC62 (Statewide and Regional) are assigned and named by ISICS, TAC6D is assigned by DPS (and not used outside of the agency). At least, that is my understanding having read some of the ISICS standards.

 

[MCWKen]

It appears that site 01-122, 774.843750 is off the air, (Clinton ADM). It still however shows as an adjacent site on site 2-23 (Clinton 2nd Ave) and site 01-56 (DeWitt).

 

[LeSueurC]

Just an FYI, numerous sites in the DB have incorrect NAC codes, was traveling through on Route 20 West to East and noticed i wasn't getting any traffic, especially on the Woodbury Co/Dakota Co site,Storm Lake, Fort Dodge, Rockwell City. Cna't remember the others but remember the few listed in particular

 

[burner50]

Just an FYI, numerous sites in the DB have incorrect NAC codes, was traveling through on Route 20 West to East and noticed i wasn't getting any traffic, especially on the Woodbury Co/Dakota Co site,Storm Lake, Fort Dodge, Rockwell City. Cna't remember the others but remember the few listed in particular

Did you happen to obtain the correct NAC codes?

I don't think anything has changed in the system, but I usually don't use a scanner while mobile.

 

[LeSueurC]

Did you happen to obtain the correct NAC codes?

I don't think anything has changed in the system, but I usually don't use a scanner while mobile.

Unfortunately I couldn't, but I distinctly remember having to set my scanner to NAC Search

 

[MCWKen]

Seems site 2-23 has changed it's NAC.

from OP25:
NAC 0x4cc WACN 0xbee00 SYSID 0x4x9 858.0375/813.0375
RFSS ID 2 Site ID 23

 

[rcid1971]

ISICS Mobile Site was active at Dyersville, Field of Dreams.
Site ID: 100
774.86875c

 

[WB0VHB]

Any one running a BCD996P2 with Proscan or any digital scanner for that matter? I have some Proscan setup questions related to ISICS.
Or a database file so I can see the structure would work too.

 

[tfhphoto]

It appears as though a new site (142) has popped up as an adjacent to the Woodbury/Starcomm site 19. I cannot receive the control channel (assuming it's up) from my location. Any thoughts as to where it may be located?

 

[ORION_NE]

It appears as though a new site (142) has popped up as an adjacent to the Woodbury/Starcomm site 19. I cannot receive the control channel (assuming it's up) from my location. Any thoughts as to where it may be located?

I am receiving this site in Onawa better than Woodbury or Castana sites. Haven't logged any radio traffic as of yet. I'll keep it connected to pro96com and see what it decodes. Alternate CCs are 769.40625 and 769.71875

Wondering if this is Harrison counties Simulcast system. It shows neighboring sites of Woodbury, Castana, Site 42, and failed connection to site 141. I did not see sites 42 and 141 in the database

 

[ORION_NE]

Forgot to include the CC frequencies.
Site 42-770.71875
Site 141-774.13125

 

[countryjoeb]

I noticed a new p25 control channel in the Lee County area last week (857.9875). I'm pretty sure that's part of the new Lee County simulcast system. I monitored State Patrol, DOT, and what I'm assuming to be Lee County testing tones and audio on talkgroups 37455, and 37533. All traffic I heard was on 855.7375. I also believe that the Donnellson site has been rolled into the simulcast system as I could not find anything on the original frequencies for that site.