Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System

[Sac916]

has the new system incorporated the frequencies left from the old one? if so, it should at least tone down the amount of crap they're getting for the new system

SSD Dist 5 ( rancho and greater area ) has had HORRIBLE portable radio coverage last week.
I'm talking significantly worse.

I just pray that between equipment upgrades (including tower hardware ) and digital migration that the coverage will improve. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

 

[Radio_Lady]

I just pray that between equipment upgrades (including tower hardware ) and digital migration that the coverage will improve. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you there, but are you hoping (apart from the equipment/tower upgrades) that switching from analog to digital will in itself help improve coverage? From what I've heard from other agencies and what I've experienced first-hand, coverage (i.e. propagation) and penetration with digital is almost always poorer than with analog, everything else being equal.

I'm pretty sure I said it before, but when LAPD switched from analog to digital we immediately began experiencing severely degraded coverage in many areas of the city, and this was using the exact same radios at the same power levels, the same frequencies, same TX/RX sites, same everything except digital rather than analog. It's been slowly upgraded to what is still unsatisfactory in some areas, and only marginal in many others. (To me, even "marginal" is unacceptable in a public safety environment, but that's another whole thread entirely).

Along comes 6/19/2001 and the almost-instantaneous switch of all the dispatch and tactical frequencies to digital. Within hours EVERYBODY connected with the radios knew that something was seriously wrong. In many areas, of course, digital sounded just terrific, very loud and very clear, but in the previously "iffy" areas, and a lot of previously adequate areas, the dispatchers' reception of the officers' transmissions plummeted. Nobody had bothered telling the RTOs (dispatchers) that the move to digital was about to occur, much less that we should expect anything to change when it did. But we caught on REAL quick that something had happened. No dummies, we radio drivers!

Hopefully you folks' mileage will vary and you'll have better results.

 

[Sac916]

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you there, but are you hoping (apart from the equipment/tower upgrades) that switching from analog to digital will in itself help improve coverage? From what I've heard from other agencies and what I've experienced first-hand, coverage (i.e. propagation) and penetration with digital is almost always poorer than with analog, everything else being equal.

I'm looking at the big picture. Hoping that all of the process, equipment, software and hardware upgrades will have a "better" end result that what we use at this time.

I'm aware of the digital issues, "either you get a signal or you dont" and that's pretty scary.

My faith in a positive end result has eroded away in the last couple weeks. I don't even want to imagine more "dead" spots in coverage.

 

[mkewman]

it's really saddening hearing that from you antfreq. and also scary. lets hope things change soon. and fast.

 

[Sac916]

update........

I'm getting a bit of conflicting info, but it appears full digital isn't going to occur anytime soon. Not this year or next year. Rebanding will be the next significant change, outside of fleetmap reprogramming.

Additionally,
EGPD comm center / dispatch should be online Aug 28th.

 

[servo_fan]

Rebanding will be the next significant change, outside of fleetmap reprogramming.

What is fleetmap reprogramming, and how does that effect our current scanners? For example, I know I have to get a new scanner when they reband, but will I have to for a fleetmap reprogram?

 

[WayneH]

What is fleetmap reprogramming, and how does that effect our current scanners? For example, I know I have to get a new scanner when they reband, but will I have to for a fleetmap reprogram?

It doesn't affect scanners unless they change the TGs for specific agencies.

It's strictly how the channels are programmed into a radio. The whole channel layout is called a fleetmap.

-Wayne

 

[Kirk]

I've stayed out of the Sacto discussions since I'm hundreds of miles from there, but now I found out I'll be in Sac the first week of September on business. Is the system still in a major state of flux, or is the database pretty good-to-go for a while?

Also, if anyone has a UASD 396/330 file they'd be willing to share, PM me.

 

[sac-emt]

I've stayed out of the Sacto discussions since I'm hundreds of miles from there, but now I found out I'll be in Sac the first week of September on business. Is the system still in a major state of flux, or is the database pretty good-to-go for a while?

Also, if anyone has a UASD 396/330 file they'd be willing to share, PM me.

Kirk,

So far the database is current and working well with my 396 and have not had any problems.

I still not have finished programming what I need. So my UASD file would not be worthy.

 

[selgaran]

Site 3 in the works?

It's a possibility...

http://www.cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20060801/03N_Fire_Dispatch.pdf

 

[Sac916]

Site 3 in the works?

It's a possibility...

http://www.cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20060801/03N_Fire_Dispatch.pdf

The current Comm Link inter-operability is below adequate, this new idea - well it simply makes sense.

My suggestion, Site 004... Roseville.
That would create a pretty large area of coverage.
Also, I'm surprised that Galt and Rocklin haven't joined either 800 system.

 

[RolnCode3]

The current Comm Link inter-operability is below adequate, this new idea - well it simply makes sense.

My suggestion, Site 004... Roseville.
That would create a pretty large area of coverage.
Also, I'm surprised that Galt and Rocklin haven't joined either 800 system.

+ Isleton

 

[Sac916]

+ Isleton

Ya know - I almost added them, but they're so isolated and tiny, that there wouldn't be a benefit to being on the SRRCS. They're a hop, skip, jump from Rio Vista and Solano. The interaction between SSD and Sac Reg. Fire is nearly non-existant.

 

[servo_fan]

How far could you extend a SmartZone system? I think Galt should have been on the TRS a long time ago, and you could make an arguement for Roseville, (even though it's in a different county), but how far out can you, or would you want to extend one of these systems beyond Sac county? Davis, Rocklin? Loomis, Dixon? Is it just local politics that limits it, or are there other factors?

 

[WayneH]

Is it just local politics that limits it, or are there other factors?

It's not hardware related. I'd say politics and/or funding.

 

[selgaran]

It's not hardware related. I'd say politics and/or funding.

As, unfortunately, are most things...

Perhaps also reasonable need? Would there be a real benefit for Stockton to be on the same radio system with Roseville, for example?

 

[RolnCode3]

As, unfortunately, are most things...

Perhaps also reasonable need? Would there be a real benefit for Stockton to be on the same radio system with Roseville, for example?

Umm, yeah. Always think of the "major incident" picture. Plus, I've heard pursuits that cross multiple counties. The original agency usually drop out due to no radio coverage with their home (ok...it's a factor, maybe not the #1 reason).

 

[selgaran]

Umm, yeah. Always think of the "major incident" picture. Plus, I've heard pursuits that cross multiple counties. The original agency usually drop out due to no radio coverage with their home (ok...it's a factor, maybe not the #1 reason).

Well, sure. One can always come up with situations where there would be a benefit. But is a massive single radio system the best (some combination of cheapest, most reliable, effective, and/or easy to use) way to meet the need? I doubt it. Do regional radio systems have a place? Absolutely. Do they present their own set of issues? Yes. But this is probably not a discussion worth cluttering up this thread with...

 

[WayneH]

I just did a massive update to the database. Basically what officially exists is now in the database.

Many thanks to the individual that submitted all that information!!

In order to get it all in at once some descriptions were overwritten (I added some text that I felt needed carrying over) and some talkgroup Groups were simplified. If you all want Cities broken down into a Group for each (PD, Fire, Services, etc) please let me know your thoughts. Also, should we stick with the new channel names or go with the older shorter ones?

-Wayne

 

[RolnCode3]

Not all of the alphatags are 100% (well...maybe it depends on the source...I have the "old" ones, and that's how all the radios I've seen are programmed), but it's (almost) certain that whoever submitted all that probably was asked not to. Just taking a WAG.

Thanks for updating the database though.

Personally, I like the Fire seperated off by itself. It makes more sense to me, personally, that way. The LE can be seperated by City.