I think someone is mistaking digital data for digital talk. If you look at the frequency database it shows BBLMWD as using that frequency for water distribution without a squelch tone and for lake patrol with a squelch tone. I noticed that when I was listening with an analog scanner I was getting a lot of that digital noise, so I went back to my digital scanner and took out the squelch tone, but got the same noise. I rarely heard that before, so it seems they have upped there use of that frequency for telemetry data. They also recently finished switching all their meter boxes so the meter readers just have to drive by instead of getting out and actually reading the meters, don't know if that has something to do with it.
San Bernardino County P25 and rebanded systems
- Thread starter avdrummerboy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sticky
Looking at their FCC license, they are now 7K60F1W. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say digital talk.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2010
- Messages
- 436
Thank you to whoever provided the updated information/talkgroups for this system! 
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,606
Was up in Wrightwood today. Was able to pickup Site-24 High Desert coming up the hill. I was able to pickup Site-13 Mountain Simulcast as long as I was higher up toward the skiing area. Had full five bars on the signal strength. The LAW-B 800mhz Fill in is still operational
Was on my Unication G-5 which performs flawless.
Was on my Unication G-5 which performs flawless.
FIR-B is still operational as well.
Should I be able to hear 3-DISP-2 on the MTN Simulcast site? I’m no longer hearing this channel on this site
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,606
Yes you should. It's a hit and miss sometimes with different talk-groups. Sometimes I will have both Unication G5 radios side by side and connected to the Mountain Simulcast system and one radio will hit on a talkgroup and sometimes the other one will not.
I do notice the VHF BDC frequencies that are patched to the different talkgroups sometimes I will hear them on VHF and then they will not come thru on the trunked Mountain Simulcast system.
Also, its from my understanding reading thru different posts here that both dispatch talk-groups 2-Dispatch-1 and 3-Dispatch-2 were suppose to patch or whatever you call it to come thru all of the sites on The SBDCO P25 Trunked system. Not sure if this has happened or its still in the works to happen. I do know that there are other people that live in different parts of the county up by Kern County that hear some of the sites. Not sure what they have been hearing or not lately.
The only systems that I mostly listen to is the Mountain Simulcast the majority of the time unless I am out in the Palm Desert area and then I am able to pickup the Onyx Site which I do know for sure 2-DSP-1 works all the time and 3-DSP-2 its hit and miss. The majority of the time both dispatch talk-groups are always working. Hopefully this helps out a bit.
The system admins tell me that the two dispatch channels are set up to push through all sites whether or not they're monitored. However they also say the system is set to allow a dispatch channel to drop off if the system is congested and the channel is not being monitored. This might explain the hit and miss. All other TGs require a radio to be affiliated with the local tower to be broadcast.
There is currently only one frequency listed for Site 16 (Chino Simulcast), is anyone in a position where they can run Unitrunker or DSD+ and get the alternate CC and/or voice frequencies?
There's some inconsistency in my notes that I need to sort out, but I don't think site 16 is live any more, if it ever was. I have many site 22 (East Central Simul) voice channel captures that previously included site 16 in their neighbor lists, but no longer do so, e.g. 853.3625, whose neighbor list does not include site 16 in captures on 2021-09-05, 2021-11-07, 2022-01-13, 2022-02-03, but did include it at some point before that. Also, those older neighbor announcements say the CC for site 16 was 0-455 (853.8500), not 0-457 (853.8625). 853.8500 is a currently-live CC for site 9 as of late February, which RRDB says is the Ontario PD station (reasonable, based on a few data points I have). Site 21 (West Valley Simul) currently uses 853.8625 as a voice channel.
Those site 22 voice channel captures similarly used to include site 30 (channel 0-349 – 853.1875), and no longer do so. There is no site 30 in the system currently and I haven't heard a site 30 on the system in the last year or so. I have heard 853.1875 as a voice channel for site 22.
I need to be in Chino sometime in the next week and will attempt to sort this out if I can.
Those site 22 voice channel captures similarly used to include site 30 (channel 0-349 – 853.1875), and no longer do so. There is no site 30 in the system currently and I haven't heard a site 30 on the system in the last year or so. I have heard 853.1875 as a voice channel for site 22.
I need to be in Chino sometime in the next week and will attempt to sort this out if I can.
Yeah looking at the FCC licensing, it seems like Site 21 would cover the Chino area (and includes 853.8625).
Do I need to add 853.850 as a CC for Site 9?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,606
It is confirmed that Site 16 does not exist. I was in Chino today with no luck on picking up 853.8625. You can delete this site
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,606
There is a new site since I ran PROCOM96 on the Mountain Simulcast system and their is a new neighbor
There's a thread on it below, the consensus seems to be Wrightwood. I'll add it to the DB.
San Bernardino County (37C) new site 33
On San Bernardino County (37C), new site 33 (CC 853.8500) is being announced as a neighbor by site 13 (Mountain Sim), and not by sites 9 (Ontario), 21 (West Valley Sim), and 23 (West Cent Vly Sim). The rest, north and east of the IE, are unknown, and where it's at unless it's maybe this site...
The existing entry for site 9 doesn't agree at all with my OTA decodes, as recently as 10 days ago. This is what I have:
Channels:
0-27 851.1750 BSI=WREC891
0-179 852.1250 DATA
0-223 852.4000 scc
0-375 853.3500 scc
0-415 853.6000 scc
0-455 853.8500 CC
Neighbors:
1.13 1-1560 771.75625
1.20 1-1692 772.58125
1.22 0-1305 859.1625
I'm going to go to the Ontario PD station at the coordinates in RRDB and confirm whether the signal is coming from there, and not Forest Falls, the location on that now-expired license from the BSI message. Note that that license matches my decoded channels exactly, and the permanent license that replaces it appears to be WRKZ337. The only other license for 853.85 in the county is that Wrightwood license (WROQ571) mentioned in the site 33 thread. Note that the same set of channels is on site 37 (Government Peak) up in Kern county.
The Ontario PD location is on two 800 MHz county licenses:
- WRCX878 STA (expires in July) which has 9 channels on 6 sites, 8 channels of which match site 23 (West Central Valley Simul cell) and 1 channel (855.1875) which is not in RRDB for the system. The other 19 channels on that cell match my decode exactly.
- WRJE460 has the other 19 channels that are not on WRCX878, on the same 6 sites (and a second instance of one channel on site 2 FWIW). There is an application pending to add the 9 channels from WRCX878 to this license on all 6 sites.
If there is a Chino Simul cell, the likely license for it is WRJH811, which has two channels – 853.8625 and 853.9125 – at four sites.
Hopefully, I'll be able to make more sense out of this late next week (unless @f40ph or others have info before that).
So we’re thinking Ontario PD is part of the West Central Valley Simulcast, and Site 9 is Forest Falls with the freqs/neighbors above?
I vote yes, here's why:
Also both FCC IDs listed for the "Ontario PD" site are generic countywide temporary "FBT/FB2T". They are not site specific like the other sites the county has been installing. Did someone just "guess" and throw those FCC licenses in there as catch all?
- There definitely is a site in Forest Falls - we know that for certain.
- The freqs posted above match the Forest Falls site.
- The site neighbors match what "should be" the Forest Falls neighbor systems.
- There is a definite reason why the County would have a stand alone site in Forest Falls (they used to have a conventional analog there).
- There's no real reason that the County would have a stand alone site in Ontario (and they never had even when analog).
Also both FCC IDs listed for the "Ontario PD" site are generic countywide temporary "FBT/FB2T". They are not site specific like the other sites the county has been installing. Did someone just "guess" and throw those FCC licenses in there as catch all?
Last edited:
DB updated. There are a few other sites (25, 28, and 38) that have FBT/FB2T licenses listed; I wasn't able to find permanent licenses for them.