Itinerant Licensing Question

[NavyBOFH]

Exactly where I was going with it. Never was I trying to merge the two together but to give a big picture of how the state operates in terms of emergency communications. I agree with Part 90 and the state has a plethora of VTAC/UTAC/8TAC options here and whenever we have a drill it's usually over a repeater set up on one of those pairs. Only reason why I know is one of the UHF repeaters is on my tower whenever it is brought over. Otherwise it's just a coax with their name on it in the repeater room.

The Palmetto 800 system was designed with interoperability in mind where every county is to have a conventional wideband 8TAC repeater set up which is monitored by dispatch in that county as well. That as I said is one of many options open to a public safety group.

I'll try to dig up the appropriate files or URLs for all this info so the OP can get a better idea and hopefully have a better route to go.

Part 90 IB seems to be unnecessary in his situation since his organization qualifies for at least one of these options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NavyBOFH]

Go here for information on Palmetto 800 mutual aid talk groups and conventional frequencies. Note that trunked talk groups are coordinated through EMD and like I said before, they are the "governing" authority on many frequencies that aren't part of the 800 system or already belonging to an agency.

SC Mutual Aid Talkgroups and Channels | Department of Administration - State of South Carolina

Conventional Mutual Aid 800 MHz Repeater Plan | Department of Administration - State of South Carolina

This is the state-wide interoperability plan I explained previously with designated uses of each system and circumstances for use: this includes SCHEART. Page 5 is the interoperability frequency use request I mentioned. I would highly advise filling it out and returning it to either the State DTO office or EMD... I will contact my guy in EMD and see if he handles the applications or just passes them on to the state.

http://www.admin.sc.gov/files/South Carolina Interoperability Channel Plan 10-19-12.pdf

Note this does not include the "LGR" repeater system which is 12 low-band repeaters throughout the state on a Part 90 license. That is (at least to me) known as an EMD setup that ETV coordinated and I am not sure which agencies or organizations have access to that system at this point. However, if you look at the PDF I linked, there's a TON of options open which only require a simple application to be returned to be authorized use as a emergency service group.

Again, if there's any questions, I will try my best to answer them or get you the answer from someone else. A lot has changed in the state as of the first of the year and I am still learning the changes in some senses.

 

[n3obl]

I use apco for public safety agencies and pcia for business.

 

[KC2zZe]

Guys, guys, guys, slow down a bit here. 8Call / Tac? UCall / Tac? If we circle back around to the original post, the OP suggests that all he has at the moment is conventional VHF-high band capabilities - with a desire to migrate toward MotoTrbo. Yes, if the radio has the channel capacity, then, by all means, the VCall/Tacs (in addition to the VFires, the VMeds, and the VLaws) should be programmed into them. But none of these channels should be used for intraagency communications, which, from the original post, is what Russ seems to want to develop / enhance. While it's been known to happen, there is no justification to use the national IO channels for routine comms within an organization.

As to the Ham systems, the OP is an Amateur Extra according to his signature line. I'm sure he's more then familiar with the capabilities (and limitations) of amateur radio.

It's been a while since we've heard from the OP. Let's wait to see how his call to the Commission went (not that I'm expecting much) and go from there before we have him bust his budget with quadband trunked portables and mobiles.

PS
n3obl, I've worked with APCO. Haven't had the opportunity to work with PICA. What's their protocol toward billing? Do they want their coordination fees paid up-front or after authorization issue? Perhaps we could take this conversation off-line so as to not hijack the thread (unless the OP/others would like to learn what to expect from whom when dealing with a frequency coordinator).

 

[jim202]

Guys, guys, guys, slow down a bit here. 8Call / Tac? UCall / Tac? If we circle back around to the original post, the OP suggests that all he has at the moment is conventional VHF-high band capabilities - with a desire to migrate toward MotoTrbo. Yes, if the radio has the channel capacity, then, by all means, the VCall/Tacs (in addition to the VFires, the VMeds, and the VLaws) should be programmed into them. But none of these channels should be used for intraagency communications, which, from the original post, is what Russ seems to want to develop / enhance. While it's been known to happen, there is no justification to use the national IO channels for routine comms within an organization.

The VCALL, VTAC, VFIRE, VMEDS and VLAW channels should only be used for inter agency communications. These are the "National Interoperability Channels" that have been set aside for just that purpose. Any time there is a multi agency incident, these are the perfect channels to be used and not clog up your normal operation channels.

The limitation is that they are not to be used as a daily channel for normal communications. In other words these are not to be used by an agency for daily communications among their own units.

If might be good that you obtain a copy of the NIFOG and read it. There is a wealth of information in it that explains the use of the channels and just what the channels are. If you do a search on the Internet, you can find down loadable copies of this document.

 

[KC2zZe]

Public Safety Technical Assistance Tools Web Site

It's all right there; green section, top two in right hand column.

 

[daugherh]

Sorry I've been away for the last day or so, sickness has hit again and I've not been feeling well enough to get on the forums.

I did manage to call the FCC helpline yesterday and was actually impressed with what I found out. For our case being on the move to different sites, and I did explain this to the lady on the phone, she said that an IG group itinerant would fit the bill.

She did mention along the lines of BOFH as well as others about the state of SC's PubSafety allocations being available and suggested that I reach out to those in charge of those as well. Seeing as I am the Deputy Director of our CERT team everything I do or reach out to has to be approved by the Director.

I am aware of the Pal800, the SCHeart nets (VHF, UHF and Trbo) and the statewide V/U/8-Call channels as well. We have been involved with deployments where the county EMD has issued us the radios to work with that system. That is the only time we have access to those frequencies.

As one poster pointed out currently we are limited to analog VHF-Hi and UHF capabilities with the desire to convert over to using TRBO radios so that we can do analog and/or digital on the same frequencies.

As far as ham use goes, I agree that according to Part 97 the use of ham nets or even simplex for that matter as everyday comms would violate the rules of 97. That was never our intention (as I explained to the director who originally wanted that) and I don't believe that any posters here have tried to lead us in that direction. Most of our members are ham operators and I am currently working on the papers and lessons to teach a basic class for our new people that are interested in becoming hams. I have used the SCHEART system and checked into those nets as well, but enough on that because we don't want to change the topic of the thread too much.

With all this being said, and with the opinion given by the lady at the FCC, we have proceeded to file an IG itinerant license and are currently waiting to find out the results of the application. The lady insisted that there most likely would be no issues, but we'll handle that as we come.

BOHF, I will contact you in the very near future about some of the offers you may be able to assist us with and thank you for your comments, as well as those of others.

As far as those wanting to discuss coordinators, please feel free to do so as it can only benefits others that may end up in this situation.

 

[NavyBOFH]

Well I am just leaving it all there. As someone who works on comms for a living I see no reason why a CERT organization needs "more" with those regards. Unless they are being activated for an actual disaster or function - what communication will actually be needed for the group?

And I'll let EMD here know about your answer towards use of interagency channels. Apparently SC needs to do some housekeeping since the State Guard has a PERMANENT repeater sitting on UTAC42 and Richland County Fire uses SCUTAC2 as a paging frequency. But what do I know I just work on the hardware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NavyBOFH]

Sorry I've been away for the last day or so, sickness has hit again and I've not been feeling well enough to get on the forums.

I did manage to call the FCC helpline yesterday and was actually impressed with what I found out. For our case being on the move to different sites, and I did explain this to the lady on the phone, she said that an IG group itinerant would fit the bill.

She did mention along the lines of BOFH as well as others about the state of SC's PubSafety allocations being available and suggested that I reach out to those in charge of those as well. Seeing as I am the Deputy Director of our CERT team everything I do or reach out to has to be approved by the Director.

I am aware of the Pal800, the SCHeart nets (VHF, UHF and Trbo) and the statewide V/U/8-Call channels as well. We have been involved with deployments where the county EMD has issued us the radios to work with that system. That is the only time we have access to those frequencies.

As one poster pointed out currently we are limited to analog VHF-Hi and UHF capabilities with the desire to convert over to using TRBO radios so that we can do analog and/or digital on the same frequencies.

As far as ham use goes, I agree that according to Part 97 the use of ham nets or even simplex for that matter as everyday comms would violate the rules of 97. That was never our intention (as I explained to the director who originally wanted that) and I don't believe that any posters here have tried to lead us in that direction. Most of our members are ham operators and I am currently working on the papers and lessons to teach a basic class for our new people that are interested in becoming hams. I have used the SCHEART system and checked into those nets as well, but enough on that because we don't want to change the topic of the thread too much.

With all this being said, and with the opinion given by the lady at the FCC, we have proceeded to file an IG itinerant license and are currently waiting to find out the results of the application. The lady insisted that there most likely would be no issues, but we'll handle that as we come.

BOHF, I will contact you in the very near future about some of the offers you may be able to assist us with and thank you for your comments, as well as those of others.

As far as those wanting to discuss coordinators, please feel free to do so as it can only benefits others that may end up in this situation.

I'm glad you got the answers you needed. I will send you my contact info over PM along with some others that might be of some help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk