Replacing Wiscom

[KC3ECJ]

By your tone you must have misunderstood my position. I am in no way against a replacement system. I am against the use of a UHF system statewide. I am all for a system that is tailored to the users it will need to serve. If that means changing some of the sites from a VHF only site to a UHF site, then by all means I'm for that. I am against making the system UHF only throughout the state because that will require more sites in rural forested counties. One of the objectives of this proposal is to increase coverage. I don't believe that will be possible without a large amount of additional sites in forested counties if the system must be UHF only.

I have read as much of the proposal as I can with my limited time and with my limited knowledge. I am by no means an expert. I do not see where it allows the proposed bid to utilize VHF repeaters other than for the four statewide conventional interop frequencies currently in use. That is why I asked you to provide a citation where it covers my concerns. Appendix E has a map of sites and if I understand it correctly, it is showing existing sites as well as future sites that would be UHF. But I don't see where the existing sites that are VHF would stay that way. I also do not see justification for why the proposal requires the system to be UHF statewide. The only thing I see that mentions why they would want to go away from VHF was a mention of a high noise floor. I don't doubt that in urban areas the noise floor is much higher on VHF as opposed to UHF, so if they decide to change some sites from VHF to UHF and are able to meet the increase in coverage... EXCELLENT. But that doesn't mean the noise floor on VHF is currently higher throughout the state.

I thought RR was a place to disseminate knowledge, but I guess if you want to just keep bashing me and claiming I'm lazy and disrespectful then OK you have a right to your opinion. I'm just asking for clarification of why I'm "digging a deeper hole".

I wonder if UHF low around 450 was even considered. I don't know what kind of spectrum space you have over there.

In my experience, in my area we have a lot of mountains and deciduous trees and 450 does good here. Wisconsin is probably more flat lander.
Curiosity.
I wonder if this is a case of somebody seeing a bigger number, 700, 800, then "it must be better!".

 

[djeplett]

I wonder if this is a case of somebody seeing a bigger number, 700, 800, then "it must be better!".

I don't think that's the case. The people who write these proposals would be more educated than that. However, I'm wondering if the proposal was written with a bias towards what the population centers would need, which definitely is a UHF trunked system. Putting a VHF trunked system in an urban area is just as stupid as putting a UHF system in a densely forrested rural area, IMO.

 

[KC3ECJ]

I don't think that's the case. The people who write these proposals would be more educated than that. However, I'm wondering if the proposal was written with a bias towards what the population centers would need, which definitely is a UHF trunked system. Putting a VHF trunked system in an urban area is just as stupid as putting a UHF system in a densely forrested rural area, IMO.

If they use the right radios they can use both bands.

I like 70cm UHF in amateur radio because I could easily continue my conversation going into a store. Steel concrete structures and such. VHF with a rubber duck antenna is usually too choppy. Now this is digital so drop outs do work a bit different than analog but do happen.

 

[CrabbyMilton]

When in doubt, why not leave it the way it is?

 

[trumpetman]

When in doubt, why not leave it the way it is?

Because the way it is cannot sustain growth. Statewide trunked radio system user bases are growing in pretty much every state at a ridiculous pace. Coverage, capacity, and capability requirements are increasing and available spectrum is decreasing, ESPECIALLY in the VHF area. I'm not super familiar with the coordination caveats in the northern border states but I imagine the 139 MHz channels probably have something to do with lack of available VHF frequencies in the usual 150 - 162 MHz split. The VHF bandplan is an absolute pain in the ass to do anything with in a coordinated effort at just the county level, much less a statewide level where you have to battle your own co-channel usage along with everyone else. Starting over in the 700/800 band with a competent regional planning committee and consistent repeater offsets is more than enough reason to make a change.

Maintaining the existing setup costs money and growth costs more money and at some point the maintaining existing equipment becomes more expensive than upgrading when the opportunity presented itself (funding, grants, newer currently supported hardware, etc). These reports and consultant suggestions are designed to crunch those numbers and offer solutions and long term planning to assist in making decisions like this. People will be upset that government picks the lowest bid and skimps out on forward thinking and potential future enhancements that will save money in the long run, but others will be upset that more money is spent up front rather than saving those future expenses for the absolute last second when they're more expensive and more desperately needed. There will always be a small subset of unhappy people no matter the issue. I'm sure the decision to change the frequency band and whatever other changes and upgrades were not taken lightly by those in charge.

Change is scary but sometimes necessary. I'm sure everyone on here has an opinion on what the best solution would be, but the important part is to know the facts, review the data, and be open to at least humoring ideas that don't align with your own and understand that there are a significant number of considerations in an undertaking this large.

Sidenote: This wasn't directed at CrabbyMilton, it was just a convenient post to springboard off of to reply to the thread.

 

[R8000]

(snip)

Very well said and 100% accurate.

 

[CrabbyMilton]

Points well taken. I'm not at all put off even if you had directed it solely to me.
Yes, as long as it works is all that counts. I was just saying that if the existing system has it's good points, they should capitalize on it and expand and improve it and not scrap it and start all over again. Regardless, it will be very interesting.

 

[evilbrad]

At least keep the talk group's non ..... "E"

 

[ts442k9]

Finally. They're switching to 7/800. That's what they should have done from the beginning but Harris sold them a bill of goods (see DaneCom.)
As to WI being "too remote." 7/800 systems are currently in use in the following states. IL, MI, IA, AK, ND, ID and so on.

 

[djeplett]

Finally. They're switching to 7/800. That's what they should have done from the beginning but Harris sold them a bill of goods (see DaneCom.)
As to WI being "too remote." 7/800 systems are currently in use in the following states. IL, MI, IA, AK, ND, ID and so on.

Clearly they could and probably should have utilized something in the UHF band in the less forrested counties and especially in the more urbanized counties. But when they put this new system on the air in the counties north of highway 29, mark my words, they will require multiple times the towers they currently have to cover the same area. It happened in Michigan in the Upper Penninsula and in the far north of the Lower as well. Just because UHF systems have been installed statewide in states with forested ares does not mean they didn't waste taxpayers money in the forested areas. OF COURSE IT CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY DONE. That doesn't mean it should be. And I question the motives of anyone denying the physics of it.

 

[OpSec]

That's what they should have done from the beginning but Harris sold them a bill of goods (see DaneCom.)

WISCOM isn't a Harris system.

 

[RADIOGUY2002]

I love the RFP, its very detailed. But my consider is the enhance sites (more towers for the same area and or specialized equipment). I do like how they built in the RFP requirement for systematic failure. Ask the state of il how well then worked when they took out the primary tower for several agencies because of a fiber line. So much for site fail over, that's why if your agency looking to join you should keep a back up for your pw dept etc. Some agencies are getting the message. Change is good if its done right, seems like they got the right thought process here from reading over the RFP. No matter what system, your still going to need bda's on some level. Theirs no easy answer on this, the semi loophole is LTE/First Net etc. The said realty is their is only a few providers for the back haul that can support this on the portable level. So those will be you RFP providers. Is it all that surprising that their looking for new system, every ten to fifteen years this is expected on some level. I just hope they emphasize the need to have enough extra parts for the duration of the system, seems to be a hot topic these days. it should be similar to Missouri trunked system. IL is a band example to follow.

 

[sgtmatt]

I could be wrong but I thought I read something a while ago that its going to be a hybread combination vhf 7/800 system. I could be wrong its been a while since i've seen the documentation that I read awhile ago.

 

[Pat]

I believe in the RFP it stated each site would have some VTAC channels that could be enabled for interop with the system, but the trunked portion of the system would be 800 MHz.

 

[k9wkj]

cool, another thing not to listen to
in our county they just put in a spiffy new simulcast analog system
they never seemed to fond of WISCOM to start with

 

[CrabbyMilton]

The bottom line is that when someone keys the mic, will it work as prescribed? Us scanner people will adapt and reprogram but the users need to know that it will be there for them and not have to resort to using a phone if they have to poddle around to get a message thru post haste?

 

[MarcusDude]

I remember when I first read about WISCOM. It was supposed to be a statewide VHF system, with an 800 MHz overlay which included the area east of I-41 from Green Bay to the south and the area south of I-94 from I-39 to the east. Could this 800 MHz overlay be what this is?

 

[wgbecks]

I am a bit late to the discussion, but I wanted to add that in addition to the excellent summation by @trumpetman for reasons to go with 700/800 MHz is the fact that the VHF spectrum has seen a significant increase in the level of the noise floor caused by countless electronic devices that now pollute the spectrum just about everywhere and thanks to the incompetence and miss management at the FCC.

I am personally aware of at least one county in Wisconsin that is battling RFI at one of their VHF sites that so far has had no resolution and is driving that local government entity to also consider moving 700/800 MHz. So, while arguments that VHF has greater range is true, it also true that this potential has been greatly diminished over the past 20-25 years by electronic pollution that extends well above VHF.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Points well taken. I'm not at all put off even if you had directed it solely to me.
Yes, as long as it works is all that counts. I was just saying that if the existing system has it's good points, they should capitalize on it and expand and improve it and not scrap it and start all over again. Regardless, it will be very interesting.

From what I read in the systems analysis report, the major concern was the condition of the sites with respect to grounding and bonding. Why not start with improving those sites as the priority and make upgrading equipment, technology as second and third priorities? The original system was built on a very low budget and to replace it at 700/800 MHz will require a tremendous expenditure.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

cool, another thing not to listen to
in our county they just put in a spiffy new simulcast analog system
they never seemed to fond of WISCOM to start with

I am amazed that analog simulcast is still available as an option. Good for them!