SD VHF Trunked System

[fast2okc]

:?: How does the SD system work for coverage up there?

I live in Oklahoma where we have spent our money on the Motorola 800MHz trunking system....not a bad choice for well populated areas, but it's hard to get good coverage out in the boonies.

The state ran out of money long before achieving statewide coveage, :shock: but I have always wondered if VHF wouldn't be a much more efficient way of covering a larger area.

:?: So how does the system actually work? Do they have large dead spots? Do they still need to keep their old system up so they can use it for a backup? Are they allowing other entities (local and county) onto the system.

--Curious in 800MHz land (FAST 2)

 

[loumaag]

:?: How does the SD system work for coverage up there?

Actually quite well. Read on...

I live in Oklahoma where we have spent our money on the Motorola 800MHz trunking system....not a bad choice for well populated areas, but it's hard to get good coverage out in the boonies.

The state ran out of money long before achieving statewide coveage, :shock: but I have always wondered if VHF wouldn't be a much more efficient way of covering a larger area.

Well of course for wide open expanses of no (or little) population the VHF would carry further. Louisiana used 800MHz and I think they would have been happier on VHF also, but it just wasn't "popular" at the time (read that as being marketed well.)

:?: So how does the system actually work? Do they have large dead spots? Do they still need to keep their old system up so they can use it for a backup? Are they allowing other entities (local and county) onto the system.

The system works, as I said, quite well. As far as the old system, it is the old system, well sort of. The state public safety was on VHF-Lo but the state DOT was on VHF-Hi. The state took over the VHF-Hi system in place, changed it to trunking, determined to use P-25 digital modulation and invited all the local entities to use the system, without user fees. Well, there are always bumps in the road. As the system was being implemented some local entities didn't want to give up their old systems or didn't want to spend the money to buy new radios or claimed there wasn't sufficent coverage to thier areas (a problem which did exist but is now mostly non-existant). But even the last hold-outs are using the system, even if not for the primary dispatch, but most of the state (public safety that is) is on the system and uses it as the primary means of communication. There are very few (read almost none) dead areas. There are a couple of dead spots but moving a few hundred feet in some direction ususally takes care of that.

Summary: If I was the god of making that kind of decision on a statewide basis, and my state was sparsely populated where the expense of putting and maintaining towers could be mitigated by hills and mountain peaks, I would use VHF (or maybe UHF depending on forestry considerations). I would leave the 800MHz to the metropolitan areas and other dense areas where I needed more equipment, but less expensive associated materials (antennas, duplexers, etc.) can be used to mitigate costs and can accept the smaller coverage areas.

 

[KAA951]

VHF vs 800

I am in Kansas and have heard more than one official lament that they did not go to a VHF-High trunking system instead of 800Mhz.

Unfortunately, VHF-High just isn't sexy enough- 800Mhz sounds like cutting edge technology to the uninformed!

I will say that 800Mhz works very well in the western (read flat) portion of our state- almost too well with towers interfering with each other when the state dispatchers hit the "when in doubt key them all up" button on their consoles. The problems that we have here (and I am sure South Dakota would have seen in the badlands) was in the east central "Flint Hills" portion of the state. Many dead zones there- even along the Interstation highways (which you would assume would be priority coverage areas).

 

[SDEngineering]

So a Lou Maag is the guy spreading all the SD System Gossip.

Here's a bit more for the Gods as he calls himself of his scanner land.

May 1st, 2005 it will no longer be monitorable by any Scanner Radio. The State towers will be upgrading to full encryption.

Merry Christmas

Sincerely,

BIT-12 Alfa

 

[DaveH]

SDE,

Just a pointed question...who exactly might you be?

No profile, and nobody knows you...may know the complete truth, or you may be just another crank. Who knows.

Lou could be wrong, one never knows, but is a lot less cryptic.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to your source of info.

Dave

 

[loumaag]

So a Lou Maag is the guy spreading all the SD System Gossip.

Here's a bit more for the Gods as he calls himself of his scanner land.

May 1st, 2005 it will no longer be monitorable by any Scanner Radio. The State towers will be upgrading to full encryption.

Merry Christmas

Sincerely,

BIT-12 Alfa

Hmm, lets address this in order.

1. I don't spread system gossip. I am the one trying to do away with worthless information and cryptic inuendo such as this post of yours.

2. I do not call myself a god of any scanner land. I said, in an above post, if I was the god of making decisions on a statewide system...you can read the rest if you wish, I assume you can read can't you.

3. You are correct in that the State of SD is upgrading tower sites and even adding some; however, it is apparent that you don't know squat about radios. Upgrading repeaters does not allow for system-wide encryption unless the radios being used on the system are upgraded to allow encrypted communication. The encryption and decryption happens at the radio, not the repeater.

SDEngineering an intersting choice of user name, what are you an engineer of? Pehaps Thomas the Train or one of his friends? Go get a life.

Oh, as to your signature block, it caused me to look back at the the new SD Radio System Communications Manual for the state system dated 11/16/2004 and published by SD Bureau of Information & Teliecommunications (BIT). Interstingly enough, this new issued manual, which gives detailed instructions as to system and even individual radio use doesn't have the word encryption or encrypt anywhere in its 47 pages. Wonder why that is?

BTW in the unlikely event every agency in the state of SD comes up with enough money to upgrade all of the radios to full encryption and it happens in May of 2005, I really won't care, because I will be somewhere else by then.

 

[blantonl]

Let's close this before it gets out of hand.

Word to the wise (engineering folks) - be careful registering to post and go after individuals... I'm watching closely.