Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System

[RolnCode3]

I thought about this post...I'll concede there's probably 1 in 100 chance Stockton and Roseville will ever really need to talk to each other...and the cost would be huge on 800. But, the possibility of Davis on the system is pretty cool. Then UCD would be one of the few holdouts.

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...

 

[selgaran]

I thought about this post...I'll concede there's probably 1 in 100 chance Stockton and Roseville will ever really need to talk to each other...and the cost would be huge on 800. But, the possibility of Davis on the system is pretty cool. Then UCD would be one of the few holdouts.

Absolutely, and if Roseville got added in, that would be a great regional radio system.

Interesting note: If the recent SRRCS TG list is complete, none of the Dave TG numbers conflict with any SRRCS TG numbers. I would guess that probably makes the process of combining things at least slightly more simple.

And Davis city council did approve the request to look into what it would take to link the systems.

Getting UCD on would be even better, but given the way UC works, I'd be amazed if it ever happens.

 

[selgaran]

If you all want Cities broken down into a Group for each (PD, Fire, Services, etc) please let me know your thoughts.

Well, I'd vote for at least breaking apart the Sacramento City list - that's a really long list to look through to find something. The smaller cities are easier to look at as one list, so it isn't a big deal.

And maybe breaking out the "public safety" related TGs from the County Services list, such as Rangers, Probation, etc into a "Other County Public Safety" group or something. Might help make that big long list a little easier to look through as well.

Thanks for putting all the work in!

 

[pfish]

Well, I'd vote for at least breaking apart the Sacramento City list - that's a really long list to look through to find something. The smaller cities are easier to look at as one list, so it isn't a big deal.

And maybe breaking out the "public safety" related TGs from the County Services list, such as Rangers, Probation, etc into a "Other County Public Safety" group or something. Might help make that big long list a little easier to look through as well.

Thanks for putting all the work in!

I second breaking it up for the bigger lists (mainly SPD) -- I did really like the old (real, for the most part) alpha tags, but I guess these longer ones are a little more friendly to people who aren't familiar with the system.

 

[servo_fan]

The database looks great, there's a lot more talkgroups than I realized. I'm with the others for breaking up the Sac city list, especially SPD. If City Fire has its own section, maybe SPD should as well. Speaking of the City Fire group, I noticed that Sac City Fire Dispatch is listed under City Talkgroups and not City Fire Talkgroups.

 

[WayneH]

I'll break it up but I consider rangers as part of the Parks Dept for a City or County general service, at least any I've ever been affiliated with. If they are a separate agency like an Open Space District or whatever I'll split them off. Comments please, just be aware I am not going to create a ton of smaller groups when ultimate they fall under the same organization (like Rangers under Parks, who is under LG or Gen Services, or probation who may be under SO).

The possibility of Davis joining? It will cost someone a lot of money. If Davis was to add their site to the system they just paid for some expensive hardware they don't need now. If SRRCS went OmniLink then Davis would be in their own zone and have their own subscriber database; complete control. It's a simple thing to just add each other to one's programming.

Also, be aware that ranges of talkgroups are specified as analog or digital. It's not a setting per talkgroup. I don't get the feeling the new assignments are related to Davis but I could be wrong. I just can't see them wasting cash they just spent to slave their system to the SRRCS system who will now control the master database.

-Wayne

 

[servo_fan]

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

This afternoon I heard some traffic on 52432, EGPD Dispatch, (it sounded like actual patrol traffic, not radio testing). They were still using the SSD unit designators, (71 Boy 1, etc), but the dispatchers were voices I didn't recognize. Does anyone know if they have moved up the conversion date?

 

[Sac916]

This afternoon I heard some traffic on 52432, EGPD Dispatch, (it sounded like actual patrol traffic, not radio testing). They were still using the SSD unit designators, (71 Boy 1, etc), but the dispatchers were voices I didn't recognize. Does anyone know if they have moved up the conversion date?

It might be dispatcher training.
CHPD did the same thing weeks before their official start date.
They also went around doing radio coverage testing.
The official start date is still Aug 28th.

 

[sac-emt]

8/8/06, 13:30 - I am hearing traffic on EGPD's Channel 1 and sounds to me like dispatcher training and system testing.

Just finished hearing a simulated vehicle pursuit that went to a footbail and capture by a K9 (human produced sirens, running officer and barking dog - pretty comical).

 

[RolnCode3]

8/8/06, 13:30 - I am hearing traffic on EGPD's Channel 1 and sounds to me like dispatcher training and system testing.

Just finished hearing a simulated vehicle pursuit that went to a footbail and capture by a K9 (human produced sirens, running officer and barking dog - pretty comical).

I heard several more simulated pursuits over the course of an hour or so. All I can say is I hope:

1)They do a slightly better job when they go online
2)They don't make the dispatchers repeat every damn word the officers say (as they were doing during the simulations)

#2 irks me more than anything else. Unless you're not in duplex repeated (ala CHP here in Sacto), there's NO NEED for the dispatcher to parrot every word the officers say. And they seemed pretty lax, and kept forgetting the beeper...minor stuff, but hopefully it's not indicative of what's going to actually happen.

 

[Sac916]

I heard several more simulated pursuits over the course of an hour or so. All I can say is I hope:

1)They do a slightly better job when they go online
2)They don't make the dispatchers repeat every damn word the officers say (as they were doing during the simulations)

#2 irks me more than anything else. Unless you're not in duplex repeated (ala CHP here in Sacto), there's NO NEED for the dispatcher to parrot every word the officers say. And they seemed pretty lax, and kept forgetting the beeper...minor stuff, but hopefully it's not indicative of what's going to actually happen.

CHPD has been doing the parrot thing most of time. Even the officers - they'll repeat plates twice and repeat their call sign at the end of the transmission. Also say " car to car " when they are talking to another unit. Seems to eat up radio time in my opinion.

 

[servo_fan]

Metro and City fire dispatchers just about parrot everything that's said to them on the command channels as well. It is a little funny, but at least we can hear them.

 

[sac-emt]

Kudos to Sacramento PD's Air1

I was monitoring traffic at approximately 2030 hours and heard Elk Grove PD conducting tests on their new system.

They were handling a Felony Stop and were looking for an outstanding suspect that ran from the vehicle.

SPD's Air1 has the TG's plugged in, monitored the call and thought that it was a real event. Well, they came in to provide support until EGPD Dispatch stated that this was a test.

Talk about pro-active support - Awesome Police Work SPD Air1!!!

According to the dispatcher (as heard before on this forum), they will be online August 28th as planned.

 

[sac-emt]

Elk Grove PD Detectives

As I monitor Sac County radio traffic tonight, it sounds like EGPD Detectives are utilizing their new radio system for real work.

If I am wrong, please notify me.

Thanks.

 

[servo_fan]

With the recent radio problems incident in mind, (not enough frequencies available during the move to SmartZone), it got me thinking about all the times a site 1 radio comes up on site 2, or vice versa, (and it seems to happen a lot). When that happens, it's been decided/proven that the radio can be heard on both sites at the same time. Doesn't that take up twice as many freqencies? (one for site 1 and one for site 2). I understand there's better coverage in a SmartZone system and that is probably the biggest benefit, but potentially it uses up twice as many freqs as before when a radio transmits across both sites, right?

 

[KMA367]

With the recent radio problems incident in mind, (not enough frequencies available during the move to SmartZone), it got me thinking about all the times a site 1 radio comes up on site 2, or vice versa, (and it seems to happen a lot). When that happens, it's been decided/proven that the radio can be heard on both sites at the same time. Doesn't that take up twice as many freqencies? (one for site 1 and one for site 2).

Not only THAT... with SmartZone, a radio doesn't even have to TRANSMIT on the "other" zone in order to tie up a frequency on that zone. My understanding is that if a unit is traveling outside its "home" zone, with its radio turned on, it will receive the talkgroup it's listening to as it travels in the other zone(s) using the new zone's frequencies.

Say it's a large system, large area, it could cause BIG problems. Officers tuned to their dispatch talkgroup are away from their home zone, whether on duty or perhaps in take-home cars or with take-home radios. As they go into other zones, their radios will continue to receive their dispatch group, but now through the new zone's transmitters and frequencies. Have a dozen such radios fanning out to different zones, it could tie up a bunch of frequencies every time there's any transmission on that TG. Heaven forbid if their radios are in SCAN mode!

Someone please correct any goofs I just committed, but I think I'm fairly close to correct.

 

[RolnCode3]

With the recent radio problems incident in mind, (not enough frequencies available during the move to SmartZone), it got me thinking about all the times a site 1 radio comes up on site 2, or vice versa, (and it seems to happen a lot). When that happens, it's been decided/proven that the radio can be heard on both sites at the same time. Doesn't that take up twice as many freqencies? (one for site 1 and one for site 2). I understand there's better coverage in a SmartZone system and that is probably the biggest benefit, but potentially it uses up twice as many freqs as before when a radio transmits across both sites, right?

But basically only public safety can access both sites. Most of the local government stuff is restricted to one or the other. Potentially, yes, it could use twice as many frequencies...

 

[WayneH]

There's been no change in channel capacity; the original article took place when the systems were in transition and had roughly half on old and new systems. And rather than having two separate systems like before you have two systems that are linked. They still operate the same. A very slim amount of talkgroups are allowed for both sites. I'm sure the design provides for this.

Otherwise I'd watch for busies (with TREPORT or whatever).

-Wayne

 

[kma371]

There's been no change in channel capacity; the original article took place when the systems were in transition and had roughly half on old and new systems. And rather than having two separate systems like before you have two systems that are linked. They still operate the same. A very slim amount of talkgroups are allowed for both sites. I'm sure the design provides for this.

Otherwise I'd watch for busies (with TREPORT or whatever).

-Wayne

Speaking of Treport, has anyone found a way to tap the discriminator on the 996 yet?

 

[WayneH]

Speaking of Treport, has anyone found a way to tap the discriminator on the 996 yet?

Ohhhh how about the thread in the Uniden forum called 996 Discriminator?

-Wayne