PA Statewide P25 Phase 2 System

KC3DYW · Apr 19, 2023

talviar said:
A couple of bullet holes in your theory-

The original PSP VHF system in my county was a 2 site VHF Conventional system using Motorola Micor Base stations and Syntor X 9000 VHF Mobiles (110 Watt) and used vehicular repeaters for portable coverage back to the barracks but in many cases the portable worked direct thru the 2 sites.

This was replaced with the Opensky System in the late 90's with an 800 system that was SPEC'ed as a MOBILE ONLY COVERAGE SYSTEM.
Officers and other users continually complained and moaned because their PORTABLE RADIOS did not work reliably on the system. (coverage required many sites to handle 4 slot TDMA voice coverage to provide the level of mobile coverage requested and demanded by users)

Fast forward to late 2020's when a spec was released to install a VHF MOBILE ONLY COVERAGE P25 TDMA trunking system. Yes its a VHF system and yes it works if you have a 110 W P25 TDMA Trunking mobile in the patrol car. It doesn't work on handhelds reliably. Officers b*tch daily cause the coverage sucks.

While the officers used VHF to communicate they did not compare apples to apples and such and many really did not utilize the VHF system to its fullest to understand and realize the limitations of the old VHF Conventional system. We can beat this to death (I think it already has)-

Issues with P25 and VHF Trunking, ask anyone involved how hard it is to get VHF frequencies that aren't slammed out of service on a frequent basis by on channel interference or what the required ERP is now to be able to be licensed by the FCC.
Same applies for UHF. 700 and 800 are very easy to get licenses on by comparison. And before you say 800 doesn't cover in mountainous terrain, can you explain why PA-ICORRS covers Fayette, Somerset, Cambria, Indiana, Westmoreland, Armstrong, and Butler counties on 800 MHz and have very minor coverage issues? The answer is the system works because we worked with the RF engineers and placed RF sites where they provided the best coverage rather than using sites that already existed...

The fact remains users want a PORTABLE COVERAGE system and the powers to be installed a MOBILE COVERAGE system. Until both sides are on the same page, there will be coverage issues.

Yes 700 , 800 are easy to get for a reason 😂
As you correctly stated, rf engineers added many towers to get the coverage!
In any event it would still have been more cost effective in the long run simply staying with bhf if possible and / or adding mobile repeaters to enhance the portable reliability!

The only reason the FCC is doing this nonsense is because someone is on someones payroll, its that simple!

KC3DYW · Apr 19, 2023

Its funny that many local governments are utilizing general and extra class ham operators in helping them layout a reliable and correct system, it seems that in serious emergencies the only reliable communications is through ham radio operators, the term R F Engineer is very loosely used today, just look at all the system failures starting with the trunked systems.

I demonstrated for a well known radio mfg ( no names given ) back in the late 90’s how I could effectively crash a trunked system within minutes very easily using their own programmed system, this was done in their own lab , they could not believe that could be done!

Now you know why I personally don’t like trunked communications for public safety operations, for delivery and taxi cab dispatch its ok because its not critical.

I have personally witnessed situations with police and fire where no comms, you have to wait, because the controller is busy🤣 so they end up using personal cell phones to communicate with dispatch, its happened in many municipalities including new york during 911, thats why they will never go back to a trunked system.

So trust me my theory and experience has no bullet holes in it!

GTR8000 · Apr 19, 2023

KC3DYW said:
Its funny that many local governments are utilizing general and extra class ham operators in helping them layout a reliable and correct system, it seems that in serious emergencies the only reliable communications is through ham radio operators

Oh god, this crap again? Really? Modern trunked systems are extremely reliable and have a lot of redundancy baked in, especially systems that feature simulcast cells with multiple subsites that can continue to provide overlapping coverage if one subsite experiences a failure.

You've made your position clear, now how about we get back to discussing the system itself, not your personal opinions of trunked systems. Feel free to start your own thread if you wish to wax on about the danger of trunked systems in the public safety environment.

KevinC · Apr 19, 2023

How about we get back on topic. If anyone feels they can do things any better then get a job with the state or one of the large LMR companies.

And no need to respond to this post. Let this serve as the one warning to stay on topic.

druhe · Apr 21, 2023

Sites 1.36 WEST30 and 1.22 ARMS32 are showing a new neighbor 3.7 154.2425. I have no signal on that frequency.

ULS License - Public Safety Pool, Trunked License - WQUY910 - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

IStebleton · Apr 21, 2023

Looks like that's the new ARMS01. (Grey pinon the map)

IStebleton · Apr 21, 2023

Has anyone noticed a site 3.4? We have 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and know of a 3.8 coming, but what about 3.4 and 1.28

firemantom26 · Apr 22, 2023

I don't have a sniff of signal on 3.7- 154.2425. It's probably at low power.

IStebleton · Apr 22, 2023

firemantom26 said:
I don't have a sniff of signal on 3.7- 154.2425. It's probably at low power.

It's only licensed for a mere 39 watts... not very powerful at all.

HM1529 · Apr 23, 2023

IStebleton said:
Has anyone noticed a site 3.4? We have 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and know of a 3.8 coming, but what about 3.4 and 1.28

I’ve not seen any evidence of 3.4 anywhere. But, there is still the McKean County migration upcoming. Perhaps it will be related to the county switch? Time will tell.

bearcat · Apr 28, 2023

New PennDot TG 11853 not in DB or the Talkgroup research list. The UIDs overlap ones I have for Indiana and Armstrong, so I am not sure which District is using it. UID 4781222 and 4781224 using it. Maybe somebody else has that range of UIDs nailed down better than me.

GTR8000 · Apr 28, 2023

bearcat said:
New PennDot TG 11853 not in DB or the Talkgroup research list. The UIDs overlap ones I have for Indiana and Armstrong, so I am not sure which District is using it. UID 4781222 and 4781224 using it. Maybe somebody else has that range of UIDs nailed down better than me.

District 10 Paint Crew

PA Statewide P25 Phase 2 System

Member

Member

NY/NJ Database Guy

The big K

Member

Active Member

Attachments

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Pennsylvania DB Admin

Member

NY/NJ Database Guy

OAMPT

OAMPT

Member

OAMPT

Member

Pennsylvania DB Admin

Pennsylvania DB Admin

Member