Re: Simulcast Sites vs. Stand Alone Sites

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
996
Location
Ohio
Does anybody know why some counties, like Cuyahoga and Summit went to Simulcast vs counties like Lorain where they have stand alone sites, where the stand alone sites are based on affliation.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
996
Location
Ohio
Does anybody know why some counties, like Cuyahoga and Summit went to Simulcast vs counties like Lorain where they have stand alone sites, where the stand alone sites are based on affliation.
Does simulcasting waste transmitting resources by sending the same messages over multiple towers instead of based on affliation and only when an emergency arises to go to simulcasting?
 

Volfirefighter

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
854
Location
Canton, OH
A simulcast system provides the most complete overlapping coverage of a county so that (hopefully) no user is ever out-of-range of a tower. It also allows users on different sides of the coverage area to hear each other while connected to different towers.
 
Last edited:

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
Does simulcasting waste transmitting resources by sending the same messages over multiple towers instead of based on affliation and only when an emergency arises to go to simulcasting?
No. All of the towers in a simulcast cell use the same frequencies, so a call is transmitted on the same frequency from every tower. The point of simulcast is to eliminate the dead spots you get in coverage from a single transmitter, much like having multiple light fixtures in a room can eliminate dark shadows.
 

Volfirefighter

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
854
Location
Canton, OH
When the state built MARCS, it placed enough towers in each county so that OSP and ODOT could, most of the time, hit a tower with an in-vehicle radio. They were not exactly concerned with local police and fire departments hitting a tower with portables far off state routes or within buildings. Simulcast solves this. When built, the infrastructure for simulcast has been paid for by the county. The three in my area: Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas were already faced at the time with replacing outdated analog and/or mixed mode trunking systems.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
4,063
Location
GA
It many cases, simulcast is something of an overkill but, in fact, they were "erring on the side of caution." In the past, many counties and municipalities had notorious dead spots. Locally, in the late 60s there were several with the 4 channel VHF repeater system. They were in areas where police had a particular need to maintain contact with dispatch and other officers. With the 800 mHz system and a total of 3 towers covering 110 square miles, the problem was solved.
 

612345

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 5, 2014
Messages
58
Location
Danbury, Ohio
There is no such thing as; "simulcast is something of an overkill " when your in some basement crawling on your hands and knees looking for the seat of the fire. This is why fire ground tactical operations should be on analog simplex. If not, the more signal saturation the better. The simulcast systems give you that.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
4,063
Location
GA
Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words but if the units are on simplex, simulcast doesn't matter. But, yes, it's better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top