The CHP has applied to the FCC for 44 MHz frequencies

[bheisner]

The CHP has applied to the FCC for 44 MHz frequencies as reflected in the NAPCO frequency log published this past Thursday.

The frequencies are from the Forestry Conservation pool.

http://www.napco.org/freqlogs/090507fl.pdf

 

[dougr1252]

There's a batch already licensed too, so I just stuck them in my CHP scanlist for when/if they go active. Nothing in 44 MHz in the RRDB yet...

New freqs:
44.62
44.64
44.66
44.74
44.84
44.88
44.92
44.94
44.96
44.98

Licensed:
Frequency: 44.62000000 44.66000000 44.70000000 44.74000000 44.94000000 44.98000000 State: CA KA4993
Frequency: 44.64000000 44.80000000 44.88000000 44.96000000 Address: HWY 101 & NORTH CREST DRIVE City: CRESCENT CITY, CA
Frequency: 44.64000000 44.80000000 44.88000000 44.96000000 Address: MACKERRICHER ST PK 3.5 MI N City: FORT BRAGG, CA
Frequency: 44.64000000 44.88000000 44.96000000 Address: DEL NORTE STATE PARK 8 MI SE City: CRESCENT CITY, CA
Frequency: 44.64000000 44.88000000 44.96000000 Address: GOLD BLUFFS STATE BEACH 5 MI N City: ORICK, CA
Frequency: 44.64000000 44.80000000 44.88000000 44.96000000 Address: HUMBOLDT REDWOODS STATE PARK 2 KM S City: WEOTT, CA
Frequency: 44.64000000 44.80000000 44.88000000 44.96000000 Address: JED SMITH REDWOODS PARK 11 KM NE City: CRESCENT CITY, CA
Frequency: 44.66000000 44.84000000 Name: PINEHLED3 Address: PINE HILL END OF PINE HILL ROAD (PINE HILL 1, T3 #8647--CAN)
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: SCOUTPK Address: SCOUT PK 8 MI SSW
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: BANNERMTNLO Address: BANNER MTN LOOKOUT NEAR
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: HOWELLMTPLA Address: HOWELL MTN 2.5 MI SW
Frequency: 44.84000000 44.92000000 Name: ZIONMT Address: ZION MOUNTAIN 1 KM S
Frequency: 44.84000000 44.92000000 Address: SIERRA VISTA LOOKOUT 6 KM NE City: SAN ANDREAS, CA
Frequency: 44.92000000 44.98000000 Name: OSOMTNLO Address: MOUNT OSO 13 MI W
Frequency: 44.94000000 Name: SUNOLRIDGE Address: SUNOL RIDGE RADIO SITE 2 KM NW
Frequency: 44.94000000 Name: HIGHLANDPEAK Address: HIGHLAND PK 16 KM NW
Frequency: 44.94000000 Name: DUBLINCHPAREA Address: 4999 GLEASON DR
Frequency: 44.94000000 Name: SUNOLCHPIF Address: 4751 INTERSTATE 680
Frequency: 44.94000000 Name: LIVERMORECHPSC Address: TRUCK SCALE EBND I-580 E

App In progress:
Frequency: 44.62000000 Name: PILOTPEAK2 Address: PILOT PEAK LOOKOUT 2 MI SW
Frequency: 44.62000000 44.84000000 Name: SACTOCHPNORTHAR Address: 5109 TYLER ST
Frequency: 44.62000000 44.84000000 Name: ANTELOPECHPSCWB Address: ANTELOPE SCALE WESTBOUND I80 11 MI NE
Frequency: 44.66000000 44.84000000 Name: SACTOCHPSOUTHAR Address: 6 MASSIE CT CHP OFC
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: UNIONHILL Address: UNION HILL 1 MI E
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: NEWCASTLECHPAR Address: 9440 INDIAN HILL RD
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: PLACERVILECHPAR Address: 3031 LOHI DR
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: GRASSVALEYCHPAR Address: 11900 SUTTON WAY
Frequency: 44.84000000 Name: RUBYBLUFF Address: RUBY BLUFF RADIO SITE 3.5 MI S
Frequency: 44.84000000 44.92000000 Name: TRACYCHPAREA Address: 385 WEST GRANT LINE ROAD

 

[RolnCode3]

What are they planning to do?

 

[tcomm_specialist]

What are they planning to do?

They are expanding their existing LB system...seeing as everyone is leaving...they are taking up more spectrum...look for more channels in high volume areas...

 

[hotdjdave]

I don't see anything in the list for SoCal.

 

[OpSec]

That's awesome. Long live lowband.

 

[gmclam]

That's awesome. Long live lowband.

Ditto on that. At a time when others are moving to 700 & 800 MHz it is great to see an agency sticking with what has been working for them. I can't think of another agency that has to cover as large of an area and is doing it without repeaters on every mountain top.

 

[R1VINCE]

so far ive heard/seen only 44.640 show up w/ tone 114.8
i dont know from where/who yet

 

[commstar]

so far ive heard/seen only 44.640 show up w/ tone 114.8
i dont know from where/who yet

East Bay Regional Parks Channel 3? Here.

 

[SCPD]

If I remember correctly 44.64, 44.80 and 44.88 used to be licensed to California State Parks. The last two were "statewide aquatic" and "statewide common," but I don't remember which frequency corresponded to each of those. 44.64 was one of 2-3 district frequencies.

State Parks started getting rid of their low band licenses quite a few years ago. It is testament to the low demand for this band's frequencies that they were still available on a statewide or nearly statewide basis after all the years that have passed.

 

[gmclam]

I used to monitor state parks, including Folsom, on 44.680, 44.800, 44.880 & 45.000 MHz. I still have the crystals for those frequencies. I show 44.680 as F1, 45.000 as F2, 44.800 as F3 & 44.880 as F4. I remember hearing "dispatch" on F1, but I am not sure of the use of the others.

 

[cousinkix1953]

Here is what I found in my old directory...

channel 1 rep./ 2 simplex
44.96 - 44.64 / 44.64
45.04 - 44.72 / 44.64
45.00 - 44.68 / 44.68

channel 3 - 44.80
channel 4 - 44.88

856-860.2625 TRS

* I've never the state park rangers using the trunked system even though they were listed as one of the shared users...

 

[icis_monitor]

That's awesome. Long live lowband.

Like I heard once (on UHF nonetheless), 'There's no band like low band.'

 

[code3cowboy]

* I've never the state park rangers using the trunked system even though they were listed as one of the shared users...

LOL, parks would never put money into a radio system that is partially functional. The peeps in Sacramento are quite happy with the Micors and Syntor 9000s that are in the field today.

 

[C138NC]

Im just curious, how come most SHP are running off low bands these days? not very many are but a few places i check up on are running on low band VHF

 

[wolter]

Im just curious, how come most SHP are running off low bands these days? not very many are but a few places i check up on are running on low band VHF

It has to do with the basics of RF physics: the long wavelengths travel further. California has a very vast terrain. Low band is a good solution to traverse that terrain with the fewest number of repeaters/transmitters.

It also has to do with how governement works: when it starts something, it is nearly impossible to change. They have been using the same RF band for decades. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" -- especially when the old dog is a government agency. The powers-that-be are typically ignorant on tech subjects such as this, So if they don't see a need for change, change won't happen. For the most part, that's why government agencies are so far behind with technology.

 

[W6KRU]

Down here in San Diego Co. the CHP has a lot of cars on the 800MHz RCS trunking system. Imperial Co. seems to be making the move as well. They are taking advantage of existing infrastructure that is already in place and operational.

 

[jmm346]

It has to do with the basics of RF physics: the long wavelengths travel further. California has a very vast terrain. Low band is a good solution to traverse that terrain with the fewest number of repeaters/transmitters.

It also has to do with how governement works: when it starts something, it is nearly impossible to change. They have been using the same RF band for decades. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" -- especially when the old dog is a government agency. The powers-that-be are typically ignorant on tech subjects such as this, So if they don't see a need for change, change won't happen. For the most part, that's why government agencies are so far behind with technology.

So "low band is a good solution" but then you bash that solution? Doesn't add up.

If you really believe low band is a good solution, then it seems like you should support states who are saving the taxpayers money and maximizing equipment that is already in place and paid for. Maybe they're not "ignorant" but actually very smart?

 

[C138NC]

I guess its all interportability if i said that work right and spelt correctly.

 

[wolter]

So "low band is a good solution" but then you bash that solution? Doesn't add up.

If you really believe low band is a good solution, then it seems like you should support states who are saving the taxpayers money and maximizing equipment that is already in place and paid for. Maybe they're not "ignorant" but actually very smart?

Reread what I wrote. I never said that I believe low band is a good solution for CHP, nor did I say that I am stating every reason why the State has remained with it. Life is more complicated than what will fit into a web forum. Don't jump to conclusions so hastily.

Regardless, this is wandering FAR off topic. If you wish to discuss this further, create a new thread about the subject.