UCAN Rebanded Frequency Patterns

[bchris]

Please compare this spreadsheet with those UCAN sites that have been rebanded.
Do you see any patterns?

There are some licenses that were all issued nearly on the same day in 2006. For some reason that I can't yet figure out, they have so far been unused. I have marked them in green. There are others that I didn't know what color to make them, so I left them black for now.

If you ignore everything in green, everything else makes pretty good sense. It looks like we should be able to pretty well predict what each site's frequencies will be after rebanding.

I have marked the pre-reband frequencies in blue, and what I think the new ones will be in orange. After they have been verified and confirmed, I marked them in red.

I would just like to know what everybody thinks about this.

 

[WayneH]

Generally you're going to see a -15MHz change as has been mentioned in all the old reports.

 

[qlajlu]

When bchris goes to work, HE GOES TO WORK!

I've been looking closely at the attached file off and on all day and yes, the sites that have been rebanded are different by 15MHz which is what the plan has called for from the beginning. We all have been aware of that. But why are there two sets of frequencies (new unused ones in green) for each site? What I find intriguing is that the FCC Call Signs of the sets of frequencies in green all begin with "WQED" which tells me they were probably all issued as a block at the same time. Why would "they" have to have these second sets of frequencies? ...for each and every site?

There is something I want you all to look at. Go to the 800 MHz Transition Manager Web page. Enter the call sign WQAP756 from the Black Crook site (UCAN site 020). If you have a pop-up blocker, you will have to override it when you click on the "Go." Every one of the frequencies listed in bchris's table for Black Crook is listed here. Scroll down the list in the left column until you find 866.4750 then look to the right. There is a column to the right of that frequency that says "Cellularized" and the next column to the right of that column that says, "Will relocate down exactly 15 MHz…" 866.4750 minus 15 equals 851.4750. Now go back to the top of the form in the left column and you will find 851.4750 (the same frequency). Move to the right and you will find a column that says, "Will be assigned new frequency and reconfigured." WHAT THE…? Could this explain the "New" frequencies in green?

After you have seen the above stuff, go back to the 800 MHz Transition Manager page and enter the FCC Call Sign for the green frequencies on Black Crook (WQED653). The story here is the same. This is very confusing.

Something else I have noticed is that half the frequencies in green, as near as I can tell, are in the band that public safety is required to abandon. Can anyone explain that? All of the frequencies in green have an apparent FCC issue date of 1/03/2006. Why issue frequencies that won't have any use for public safety after rebanding?

One redeeming quality of all this research is that we should know immediately which frequencies to look for as things go black when they throw the switch. Our down-time as scanner enthusiasts should be equal to the amount of time it takes the UCAN Engineers to make their tests and go live again. I think bchris deserves a slap on the back and a big "AttaBoy" for reporting this work.

But why the green frequencies?

 

[bchris]

New File

I understand that some have had trouble opening the file attached to the first post. It should be an Excel spreadsheet, compressed with WinZip. Uncompressed it was 465K.

I have now saved it in 3 sections in the original .xls format, added the .txt extension, and attached them to this post.

If you would like a copy of the original single file, please PM me with your email address. I will be happy to send it to you.

 

[gadgetmikey]

Brent

I was just curious now that you are fairly familiar with all the licenses if there are any active IR sites that you think we have not found.

-Mike

 

[bchris]

UCAN Sites

Brent

I was just curious now that you are fairly familiar with all the licenses if there are any active IR sites that you think we have not found.

-Mike

Mike

I think all the active UCAN sites are listed in the database, with one possible exception, which is Ibapah.

It is on the western edge of Utah, quite a bit south of Wendover. UCAN has had a license for that site for quite a while, and they have kept it up to date as far as rebanding and new frequencies. I also heard the UCAN techs talking a week or two ago when one of them was on the way out there. Might be just analog for now, but my best guess is that it is an active trunking site. I headed in that direction last winter looking for signals, but never made it far enough to detect anything. Now I have a PSR-500 and a much more directional antenna... maybe I can find a peak west of Vernon and look again if I take another road trip. I would enjoy driving all the way out there, but it's hard to justify the time and $ for one obscure site.

Our DB lists a couple sites that I think are inactive, and there are no new licenses for them. They are Vernon Hills and Little Cottonwood. I drove within a couple miles of Vernon Hills and there was nothing at all. I have not specifically drove to Little Cottonwood.

There are also several sites with recently issued FCC permits that I believe are not YET active, but probably will be sometime. They are Tabby Mtn (Tabiona), Mt Baldy (Indianola), Hobble Creek (Springville Cnyn), Powder Mtn, and Cliff Lodge.

I also wouldn't mind Hansel Mtn, site #40, being renamed to Snowville since that is how it is shown on the current FCC records. I think the same would apply to site #25, Big Cottonwood vs Scotts Peak. The names threw me off track until I found the coordinates on a map and saw multiple names for the same locations. There were previously discrepencies on FCC records for Ford Ridge, Medicine Butte, and maybe others that caused some confusion for me. In all these cases our DB has listed 'my name of choice' since I have been part of the group.

-bc

EDIT1: GadgetMikey had mentioned that Hansel Mtn was the name that was being broadcast in the data stream from that site. That being the case, I would leave it named Hansel Mtn unless they change the name in the data stream.

EDIT2: This very morning I heard one of the UCAN techs on his way to Hobble Creek. I drove up there 6-8 weeks ago and there was nothing active in the trunking freq range, but maybe today is the day.

 

[enosjones]

Mike

I think all the active UCAN sites are listed in the database, with one possible exception, which is Ibapah.

It is on the western edge of Utah, quite a bit south of Wendover. UCAN has had a license for that site for quite a while, and they have kept it up to date as far as rebanding and new frequencies. I also heard the UCAN techs talking a week or two ago when one of them was on the way out there. Might be just analog for now, but my best guess is that it is an active trunking site. I headed in that direction last winter looking for signals, but never made it far enough to detect anything. Now I have a PSR-500 and a much more directional antenna... maybe I can find a peak west of Vernon and look again if I take another road trip. I would enjoy driving all the way out there, but it's hard to justify the time and $ for one obscure site.

Our DB lists a couple sites that I think are inactive, and there are no new licenses for them. They are Vernon Hills and Little Cottonwood. I drove within a couple miles of Vernon Hills and there was nothing at all. I have not specifically drove to Little Cottonwood.

There are also several sites with recently issued FCC permits that I believe are not YET active, but probably will be sometime. They are Tabby Mtn (Tabiona), Mt Baldy (Indianola), Hobble Creek (Springville Cnyn), Powder Mtn, and Cliff Lodge.

I also wouldn't mind Hansel Mtn, site #40, being renamed to Snowville since that is how it is shown on the current FCC records. I think the same would apply to site #25, Big Cottonwood vs Scotts Peak. The names threw me off track until I found the coordinates on a map and saw multiple names for the same locations. There were previously discrepencies on FCC records for Ford Ridge, Medicine Butte, and maybe others that caused some confusion for me. In all these cases our DB has listed 'my name of choice' since I have been part of the group.

-bc

EDIT1: GadgetMikey had mentioned that Hansel Mtn was the name that was being broadcast in the data stream from that site. That being the case, I would leave it named Hansel Mtn unless they change the name in the data stream.

EDIT2: This very morning I heard one of the UCAN techs on his way to Hobble Creek. I drove up there 6-8 weeks ago and there was nothing active in the trunking freq range, but maybe today is the day.

They have talked about Hobble, Tabby and Baldy and have heard them going to Moab too although Im not sure why, just confirming this info.