Does anyone know if LAFD is going to remain conventional, or go to a trunking frmat when rebanding happens?
LAFD and rebanding
- Thread starter INDY72
- Start date
- Status
MCIAD
Member
The Rumor in the street is . . .
I have been hearing snipits that LAFD is looking at dropping 800MHz altogether and going back to UHF. I have not been able to confirm this, but I am trying.
I made a new contact within LAFD last week who should be able to answer the question, so I should have more info in the near future, as to the validity of the rumor.
MCIAD
I have been hearing snipits that LAFD is looking at dropping 800MHz altogether and going back to UHF. I have not been able to confirm this, but I am trying.
I made a new contact within LAFD last week who should be able to answer the question, so I should have more info in the near future, as to the validity of the rumor.
MCIAD
2wayfreq
Member
Supposedly,
If it will be soon or years, but they are supposed to go to 700MHz digital trunking and encryption. Why you would want to encrypt a backyard BBQ pit gone awry call is beyond me. :shock:
If it will be soon or years, but they are supposed to go to 700MHz digital trunking and encryption. Why you would want to encrypt a backyard BBQ pit gone awry call is beyond me. :shock:
Ben96cal
Member
re: lafd
because there are many departments, perfect example is lafd that doesn't want anyone listening to them. just look at there policy on going after people who try to stream them online.
because there are many departments, perfect example is lafd that doesn't want anyone listening to them. just look at there policy on going after people who try to stream them online.
Strange, considering LAPD, LACSO, CHP... and numerous others don't give a rat's butt....
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,012
- Reaction score
- 133
Re: re: lafd
I don't understand. What happens to people who stream them?Ben96cal said:
RolnCode3
Member
The only implications (usually) are Homeland Security (catch-all) and Arson Investigators. Other than that, it is pretty much "who cares" for 99% of all fire calls. At least around here, there are so many different agencies and people that are involved in medical and fire work that it's surprising they'd want to cut that out.
oregontreehugger
Member
My guess is, with the current budget situation in CA, I bet they will stay status quo for a while.
It's a shame that more fire agencies didn't stay VHF. There are a lot of fire departments that are still there. Now the big cities have to buy two types of radios: the fancy 800 MHz/etc. type for home and regular VHF for mutual aid and strike teams. How that is supposed to be budget conscious is beyond me.
Not to mention the upset departments (especially volunteers and smaller depts.) that have their neighbors go to 800 MHz trunking/APCO 25/encryption/etc. All of a sudden they are faced with spending money on radios to cooperate instead of putting it where it counts, such as on apparatus upgrades or more equipment and staffing. I'd rather have an engine show up with a crew of 4 firefighters than 2 firefighters, each with a $6,000 radio.
In this day of 'Homeland Security' I would think more agencies would want to be able to communicate. Putting everyone on different systems sure goes against that. If someone really wanted to spend their money wisely, how about putting in a statewide radio system where agencies can leverage their collective buying power and still interact with each other? I guess I'm not surprised, especially with politics involved. :?
Just my .02
It's a shame that more fire agencies didn't stay VHF. There are a lot of fire departments that are still there. Now the big cities have to buy two types of radios: the fancy 800 MHz/etc. type for home and regular VHF for mutual aid and strike teams. How that is supposed to be budget conscious is beyond me.
Not to mention the upset departments (especially volunteers and smaller depts.) that have their neighbors go to 800 MHz trunking/APCO 25/encryption/etc. All of a sudden they are faced with spending money on radios to cooperate instead of putting it where it counts, such as on apparatus upgrades or more equipment and staffing. I'd rather have an engine show up with a crew of 4 firefighters than 2 firefighters, each with a $6,000 radio.
In this day of 'Homeland Security' I would think more agencies would want to be able to communicate. Putting everyone on different systems sure goes against that. If someone really wanted to spend their money wisely, how about putting in a statewide radio system where agencies can leverage their collective buying power and still interact with each other? I guess I'm not surprised, especially with politics involved. :?
Just my .02
JoeyC
Senior Member
Re: re: lafd
Baloney, if the LAFD didn't want anyone listening, they certainly wouldn't advertise their freqs on their website.
http://www.lafd.org/freqncy.htm
Ben96cal said:
Baloney, if the LAFD didn't want anyone listening, they certainly wouldn't advertise their freqs on their website.
http://www.lafd.org/freqncy.htm
N
N_Jay
Guest
oregontreehugger said:
Your purchasing department should be shot if they are paying anywhere neer $6K for a radio.
Even a top of the line P25 radio is well under $4K
oregontreehugger
Member
That's a little more reasonable. How about two sub-$4K radios with $2K worth of accessories? Wait, I forgot they will have a mobile radio, too. :wink:
Mobile top of the line APCO-P-25compliant- around $3,000.00 to $5,000.00, Cost of programming, and installing on a fire fighting appuratus, including wiring, ants... Time & Labor- Around $1,000.00 (If done by a professional installer under contract with your agency and fully athorized by the radio manufacturer to deal with it.)
Cost of usage when your lucky eneough that everyone can interop? PRICELESS! Cost of usage when NO ONE can talk to each other? Too high a price in losses and life.
Cost of usage when your lucky eneough that everyone can interop? PRICELESS! Cost of usage when NO ONE can talk to each other? Too high a price in losses and life.
Re: re: lafd
Exactly. To be fair, LAFD has a nuanced and, IMO, rather strange policy. But they certainly aren't "anti scanner". For whatever reason, they state strongly that they do not want to see anyone but themselves streaming LAFD radio audio on the internet. See http://www.lafd.org/audio.htm
Although LAFD doesn't want unofficial streams, they do seem to encourage traditional monitoring of their communications. I specifically refer to this portion of the above page:
"The LAFD operates a fully repeated (analog conventional) radio system. All of our routine tactical voice communications can be monitored almost anywhere in Southern California. All that is required is a readily available 800 MHz scanner radio. We encourage those living in or visiting Los Angeles to network with local monitoring enthusiasts for more information. To make things easier, we are pleased to provide a complete list of LAFD Voice Radio Frequencies to program into your scanner radio."
Strange overall policy (to disallow internet streams), but definitely NOT a department that "doesn't want anyone listening to them".
Dan
www.ScanLosAngeles.com <-- New Southern California Frequency Directory!
JoeyC said:
Exactly. To be fair, LAFD has a nuanced and, IMO, rather strange policy. But they certainly aren't "anti scanner". For whatever reason, they state strongly that they do not want to see anyone but themselves streaming LAFD radio audio on the internet. See http://www.lafd.org/audio.htm
Although LAFD doesn't want unofficial streams, they do seem to encourage traditional monitoring of their communications. I specifically refer to this portion of the above page:
"The LAFD operates a fully repeated (analog conventional) radio system. All of our routine tactical voice communications can be monitored almost anywhere in Southern California. All that is required is a readily available 800 MHz scanner radio. We encourage those living in or visiting Los Angeles to network with local monitoring enthusiasts for more information. To make things easier, we are pleased to provide a complete list of LAFD Voice Radio Frequencies to program into your scanner radio."
Strange overall policy (to disallow internet streams), but definitely NOT a department that "doesn't want anyone listening to them".
Dan
www.ScanLosAngeles.com <-- New Southern California Frequency Directory!
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,012
- Reaction score
- 133
I am glad that lafd has common sense in allowing people to hear their traffic.This is the way it should be across the nation. :wink:
karldotcom
Member
Re: re: lafd
They don't want anyone streaming their communications, because they don't want someone to edit their contents, or to release comms to the media (say you were capturing a LODD and offered it to the media before notifications were made)
I think they have very valid reasons. We have all seen the childish blowups inside the scanner community
They don't want anyone streaming their communications, because they don't want someone to edit their contents, or to release comms to the media (say you were capturing a LODD and offered it to the media before notifications were made)
I think they have very valid reasons. We have all seen the childish blowups inside the scanner community
DanRollman said:
That'll be the day. :lol: :roll: :evil:
- Status
Similar threads
