Low Band is Not Dead Yet

Status
Not open for further replies.

HH-65

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
46
Location
AL
The following message was sent to me by a friend from his county EOC.> It May open some eyes as to whats available in communications.


The State of Missouri after looking at the huge costs and the unreliability of new 800 mhz. StarComm and the unreliable MA/COMM EADCS, The state has decided to upgrade their old system and save the state tax payers millions.
Last I heard they are struggling to find VHF frequency pairs. They only have 3 pairs for the Sikeston site, and need to come up with 5 total. The plan to use maritime channels is pretty much limited to Troop D due to a 5 dB contour being required from the Mississippi & Missouri rivers. They have stripped out many of the interoperability features, no longer planning on an MTAC station at every site.

With the updates to the low-band system over the last 2 years, they are having better comm's there than they have for many years. Earlier this week, an antenna array was removed from one repeater site that was manufactured in May 1970! This year all the low-band to UHF crossband repeaters are being replaced with new Daniel's Electronics repeaters. Last year, all the 100w and 250w remote bases were replaced, and the year before the high-power transmitters were completely re-built and the Master II exciters changed out to Daniel's exciters. I know they've also been adding PreSonus Comp 16 audio processors to their sites and the audio from those sites is fantastic! They are also using multicasting in several troops, with more to come. Troop H, for example, is now live with 2kw at St. Joe on 42.400, 100w at Watson on 42.580, 100w at Mercer on 42.120, and 250w at Utica on 42.380. So, instead of choosing one transmitter like they used to, they are now multi-casting on all 4 transmitters whenever they key down. This has really helped the troopers in the field to hear the dispatch centers. In Troop A, they are now simulcasting 2kw from Lee's Summit on 42.860 with a 250w transmitter near I-70 and US 65 on 42.920. These changes are happening all over the state.

Lowband is not dead and with all the upgrades is more robust and responsive than it has been in many years, if ever. Long live reliable, affordable & simplistic low-band communications without a single point of failure!!
 

vinzep491

Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
979
I'd like to reply and say I'm happy that they found a system that is working well for them.

I'm not going to give my comments on the Digital-vs-LowBand debate that is sure to start any minute now.

Scan On, Friends!
 
Last edited:

vinzep491

Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
979
Ah, finally in the correct state..
I thought I was loosing it for a minute... First in NY forum , then PA, and finally here


;) This thread's traveling Cross Country.
 
Last edited:

iamhere300

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
1,346
Location
Chappell Hill TX
Last I heard they are struggling to find VHF frequency pairs. They only have 3 pairs for the Sikeston site, and need to come up with 5 total. The plan to use maritime channels is pretty much limited to Troop D due to a 5 dB contour being required from the Mississippi & Missouri rivers. They have stripped out many of the interoperability features, no longer planning on an MTAC station at every site.

!!

I think this is pretty dated stuff.

MTAC stations are being put at 24 hour PSAP's, nearly 300 of them. Site surveys are being done now. Interop on the SWN is mainly talkgroups, which have not been stripped out. A MTAC station at every site was not a part of the system.

It was known going in that there would be issues finding enough frequencies, but agreements are being signed for co-channel users, and a grant program is in place so that some agencies might consider turning over their frequencies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgQMtquS6Y
 
Last edited:

iamhere300

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
1,346
Location
Chappell Hill TX
What is the source of this information ?

Other than the above quote, just about everything in the OP's post comes directly from the http://forums.radioreference.com/mi...184149-whats-latest-info-mshp-new-system.html thread.

I totally missed that line. Someone probably ought to let the state know they are not moving forward on the new system. Here they are filling out applications, and doing builds.

So, not only does the OP have dated information, he has wrong information.
 

mjthomas59

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
510
What exactly are these MTAC stations? Do these coincide with the VTAC, ITAC, etc channels? Or is this all totally unrelated?

Thanks for the help!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top