UCSB - New P25 Phase 2 TRS, BEE00-A73

kj6psg

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
111
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
I just saw this pop up a few days ago, by pure coincidence. To avoid confusion: talkgroup, radio, RFSS, and Site IDs are in decimal, while WACN and System ID are hexadecimal.

WACN BEE00, System ID A73
Bandplan 0: Base 851.00625 MHz; Offset -45 MHz; Spacing 6.25 kHz; Bandwidth 12.5 kHz; Phase 1
Bandplan 1: Base 851.00625 MHz; Offset -45 MHz; Spacing 6.25 kHz; Bandwidth 12.5 kHz; Phase 1
Bandplan 2: Base 851.0125 MHz; Offset -45 MHz; Spacing 12.5 kHz; Bandwidth 12.5 kHz; Phase 2 two-slot
Bandplan 3: Base 762.00625 MHz; Offset +30 MHz; Spacing 12.5 kHz; Bandwidth 12.5 kHz; Phase 2 two-slot

RFSS 1, Site 1 (appears to be the only site):
NAC A71
Control channel 0-397, 853.4875 MHz
Secondary CC 0-317, 852.9875 MHz
Traffic channel 0-77, 851.4875 MHz
C4FM modulation
BSI "CHANGEME" on 851.4875 MHz

Units have made calls (all TDMA using bandplan 2, and so far all from unit 701714) on these talkgroups:
Clear: 1
Encrypted: 3, 1702
Affiliation only: 4, 1700

All units appear to have IDs in the 7017xx range.

I haven't been monitoring for very long, but I've seen affiliations to talkgroups 1 and 3 so far. No voice traffic heard (yet) but activity on the only traffic channel listed has been in Phase 1. I only noticed this TRS appear since I was monitoring 851.4875 because there's an old 800 MHz conventional system with a revoked license spitting out a CWID. I don't know how long it's been on the air, but I logged its BSI first on 26-Jan-2020. It fades in and out so it was probably on the air before I started monitoring.

Based on frequency licensing, I would expect this to be UCLA replacing their Type II system. It's rather far from me so I can't monitor activity on here too well. I'll move a receiver over from CWIRS to here to get a better idea of what's happening with this system.

No, I haven't made a DB submission yet. I'll do that once I have more talkgroups listed.
 

bcorbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
213
Location
Los Angeles
Probably not UCLA. They're still running their analog system and I'm not copying a second control channel on any of their frequencies. Maybe, just mayyybe, UCSB??


[...]

Based on frequency licensing, I would expect this to be UCLA replacing their Type II system. It's rather far from me so I can't monitor activity on here too well. I'll move a receiver over from CWIRS to here to get a better idea of what's happening with this system.

No, I haven't made a DB submission yet. I'll do that once I have more talkgroups listed.
 

bcorbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
213
Location
Los Angeles
IIRC, all the UC's shared the same set of frequencies at 866 (just as they used to share a common set of VHF frequencies for PS), so - post rebanding, they should all be in the same place at 851. In the early days at 866, it was not terribly uncommon during large intercampus events (Regents meetings, typically), for units from other campuses to pop up in strange places on the host system 8*)
 

kj6psg

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
111
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
Just checked the licenses. WNWX383, for UCSB, added Phase 2 emission designators not too long ago. The frequency pool lines up as well.

Additional talkgroup 3000.
 

kj6psg

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
111
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
Monitored overnight, came up with the following system information:
Talkgroups: 1, 2, 3, 4, 1300, 1700, 1702, 3000, 4000
Group calls heard on 1, 2, 3, 1702, and 3000. All were either test counts or "can you hear me?" with nothing useful heard. All voice activity is Phase 2 TDMA on 851.4875 MHz. TG 3 is full-time encrypted, 1702 probably is as well but I don't have enough data to confirm it.

Radio IDs:
1, 102, 701700-701704, 701707-701709, 701711, 701713, 7001716 (someone made an oopsie), 701717. Test counts were coming from 102.
 

monitor142

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
223
Location
California
It's going to be UC Santa Barbara. They are in the process of replacing their analog Smartnet system with a new Motorola P25 system.

UCLA is a participating LA-RICS member however I don't see all campus operations moving over due to capacity reasons but definitely will be UCLA PD and possibly the campus BLS EMS units staffed by students. One of their options is to covert their legacy 800MHz channels over to Trbo or NXDN like other UC's have done for non public safety ops. If money is no object than they could build their own UCLA specific simulcast cell hosted by the LA-RICS P25 Core...

-M142
 

kj6psg

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
111
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
I had to stop monitoring a few days back because I just don't have the signal-to-noise ratio to properly monitor the system. I ended up with these talkgroups, all Phase 2 (bold indicates voice activity):
1, 2, 3, 4, 1300, 1700, 1702, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4300, 5700.
 

KD6NCA

Newbie
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
3
Nice work, KJ6PSG! Talkgroups 3 and 1702 are the only encrypted talkgroups. 3 is for UCPD, 1702 is just for testing. Here's another license: WRFH228 (700MHz freqs for a second site to be placed on Santa Cruz Island; equipment has been ordered). I'll provide a list of talkgroups once things settle down a bit, probably in a month or so. The 7001716 ID was definitely an oops -- I was given one with 7001715, which I promptly fixed. The 7017XX IDs are for Network & Communications Services staff. The police dispatch consoles use IDs in the 100 range (101, 102, and 103). The portable radios are APX4000, except for police who use APX7000 radios purchased nearly five years ago.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
13,272
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Nice work, KJ6PSG! Talkgroups 3 and 1702 are the only encrypted talkgroups. 3 is for UCPD, 1702 is just for testing. Here's another license: WRFH228 (700MHz freqs for a second site to be placed on Santa Cruz Island; equipment has been ordered). I'll provide a list of talkgroups once things settle down a bit, probably in a month or so. The 7001716 ID was definitely an oops -- I was given one with 7001715, which I promptly fixed. The 7017XX IDs are for Network & Communications Services staff. The police dispatch consoles use IDs in the 100 range (101, 102, and 103). The portable radios are APX4000, except for police who use APX7000 radios purchased nearly five years ago.
Hey Kevin, I think I talked to you once or twice via the UC CPG e-mail group list, probably several years ago about replacement systems.
Glad to hear UCSB has their system in place. What's the site at Santa Cruz Island for? Is it for the Natural Reserve site out there, or is it to fill in coverage on the campus?
 

KD6NCA

Newbie
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
3
Hi Matt! It took a long time to get approval for the system replacement. The fact that we had to buy parts off eBay to keep the old Smartnet system going, along with running PD dispatch using mobile radios for a couple of weeks when the console connections failed, probably helped with the decision. The purpose of the Island site is for fill-in along the beaches. NRS would like to use the system, but the site will use sector antennas and probably won't meet their needs. The site will help with some mutual aid situations (e.g. our PD was part of the Montecito debris flow response) and partial coverage for some new ranch property up the coast. The equipment will include a standard GTR8000 "six-pack" chassis and combiner, so growth is readily achieved. The site itself is being built by SB County on a DHS grant, so they'll have a backhaul link and we're working on a second backhaul direct to UCSB (which we intend to offer for voice backhaul for others located at the site).
 

KD6NCA

Newbie
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
3
No Talkgroups are currently listed. Once usage is confirmed, kindly submit so that we can populate the Db.
Thank you for your work to keep this valuable resource up-to-date. Talkgroups submitted as ticket 214438.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
13,272
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Hi Matt! It took a long time to get approval for the system replacement. The fact that we had to buy parts off eBay to keep the old Smartnet system going, along with running PD dispatch using mobile radios for a couple of weeks when the console connections failed, probably helped with the decision. The purpose of the Island site is for fill-in along the beaches. NRS would like to use the system, but the site will use sector antennas and probably won't meet their needs. The site will help with some mutual aid situations (e.g. our PD was part of the Montecito debris flow response) and partial coverage for some new ranch property up the coast. The equipment will include a standard GTR8000 "six-pack" chassis and combiner, so growth is readily achieved. The site itself is being built by SB County on a DHS grant, so they'll have a backhaul link and we're working on a second backhaul direct to UCSB (which we intend to offer for voice backhaul for others located at the site).
Nice. We were buying MSF-5000's for a while back around 2009/2010 to keep our SmartNet system going. Towards the end, it seemed like one of them would drop every week or so. Finally were running on 3 channels and put two of the NXDN repeaters on the other two combiner slots so we could slowly turn up that system.

I think NRS is on UHF, I look after their system up in Big Creek. Fun to get to go out there for a few days. Recently replaced a few of their antennas for them. Have to head down there as soon as my new service monitor arrives. I think their repeaters are out of tune a bit. Not surprising considering the locations and temperature swings.

Makes sense for beach fill in. We're struggling with some of that, but don't have any islands off shore to help us. Santa Cruz County was doing some remote receivers over in Monterey for a while to try to get some fill in that way.
 

pcorrin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
19
Location
riverside ca
IIRC, all the UC's shared the same set of frequencies at 866 (just as they used to share a common set of VHF frequencies for PS), so - post rebanding, they should all be in the same place at 851. In the early days at 866, it was not terribly uncommon during large intercampus events (Regents meetings, typically), for units from other campuses to pop up in strange places on the host system 8*)
Unfortunately it appears the UC system didn't continue a master plan for communications and the idea of the interoperability of law and/or other support services being able to go campus to campus and keep their radios to work isn't a concern like it was when the uc system originally went to the 800 trunked systems. for example San Diego is on the counties system for pd and campus services is now on a uhf DMR there. Riverside no longer has an 800 trunked system and it was replaced with what appears to be a uhf dmr system (no license info has been found) also for campus use and PD is on the Riverside PSEC system. So in all it appears everyone is doing what they need to do for their needs.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
13,272
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
So in all it appears everyone is doing what they need to do for their needs.
Yup.
What kicked the "common system" thing off was partially the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Campuses from Southern California helped with recovery in the Northern California campuses. Communications interoperability was an issue.
The UC Office of the President wanted to fix that. About that time, APCO was doing it's Project 16 (P16, P25's older brother). It took 4 years, but in 1994 the campuses got common systems. (4 years is lightning/turbo speed in UC purchasing terms) Not identical, but all Motorola Type 2i 800MHz systems sharing (at least) the same 5 NPSPAC 800MHz pairs. A few campuses had SmartZone multi site systems, but most were SmartNet single site.
As those systems started to age out, we looked for more central funding to keep a common platform. There wasn't any. And needs had changed. Interoperability between UC campuses wasn't as critical since most immediate mutual aid support was going to be coming form local agencies. In some areas, 800MHz wasn't common, so some campuses moved public safety to other systems/frequencies. Multiband radios weren't really a reality yet, so that sort of stuck a fork in the whole thing. Cell phones were more popular/affordable, so there's that for non-public safety users. Keeping a cache of spare radios was cheaper in the long run for most campuses.

Since replacement systems had to be funded by each campus, each UC had to do what made sense. Large scale 700/800 P25 trunked system from the Large Manufacturer$ were too expensive for most. Requiring a plumber, painter, electrician or transit bus to carry a $2000 P25 radio didn't make financial sense since there were precisely -ZERO- scenarios where a police officer needed to speak directly to a bus driver. That had all been done, even on the common trunked system, by dispatchers passing on the message.

Even with many UC PD's switching to APX-8000's, the ability to communicate at any campus isn't a guarantee. Since some campuses went to regional systems, and they charge per subscriber, there's no logic that makes sense that has a Northern UC paying for access to a regional system in Southern California "just in case".

It was a good idea, at one time. That time is gone and ain't coming back.
 

pcorrin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
19
Location
riverside ca
Yup.
What kicked the "common system" thing off was partially the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Campuses from Southern California helped with recovery in the Northern California campuses. Communications interoperability was an issue.
The UC Office of the President wanted to fix that. About that time, APCO was doing it's Project 16 (P16, P25's older brother). It took 4 years, but in 1994 the campuses got common systems. (4 years is lightning/turbo speed in UC purchasing terms) Not identical, but all Motorola Type 2i 800MHz systems sharing (at least) the same 5 NPSPAC 800MHz pairs. A few campuses had SmartZone multi site systems, but most were SmartNet single site.
As those systems started to age out, we looked for more central funding to keep a common platform. There wasn't any. And needs had changed. Interoperability between UC campuses wasn't as critical since most immediate mutual aid support was going to be coming form local agencies. In some areas, 800MHz wasn't common, so some campuses moved public safety to other systems/frequencies. Multiband radios weren't really a reality yet, so that sort of stuck a fork in the whole thing. Cell phones were more popular/affordable, so there's that for non-public safety users. Keeping a cache of spare radios was cheaper in the long run for most campuses.

Since replacement systems had to be funded by each campus, each UC had to do what made sense. Large scale 700/800 P25 trunked system from the Large Manufacturer$ were too expensive for most. Requiring a plumber, painter, electrician or transit bus to carry a $2000 P25 radio didn't make financial sense since there were precisely -ZERO- scenarios where a police officer needed to speak directly to a bus driver. That had all been done, even on the common trunked system, by dispatchers passing on the message.

Even with many UC PD's switching to APX-8000's, the ability to communicate at any campus isn't a guarantee. Since some campuses went to regional systems, and they charge per subscriber, there's no logic that makes sense that has a Northern UC paying for access to a regional system in Southern California "just in case".

It was a good idea, at one time. That time is gone and ain't coming back.
Well I saw that system come and go at uc riverside, as my dad was the fire marshal there for over 25 years and I had my hands on many for his department whether for programming or repair. I argued from day one facilities maintenance, grounds, student life, residence halls, dining services etc all should have not been on it. Main reason being public safety band plan certainly did not include those uses. The systems worked, for their purpose, and for way longer than anyone at motorola ever intended it to be for that matter. I do not know about other campuses but the PD being in charge of it was a terrible idea. No outright radio professional to handle the work, period. nobody want to pay for it and the number of radios that were bought over the years for special projects and purposes was ridiculous, but thats big little bureaucratic spending for ya.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
13,272
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Well I saw that system come and go at uc riverside, as my dad was the fire marshal there for over 25 years and I had my hands on many for his department whether for programming or repair. I argued from day one facilities maintenance, grounds, student life, residence halls, dining services etc all should have not been on it. Main reason being public safety band plan certainly did not include those uses.
Yeah, but not against the rules. What it did do is get a larger/better system than individual departments could have done on their own. Remember, at the time P16 and 800MHz was going to solve everyone's radio issues. Forgot how many times I was told that "everyone" was going to 800MHz….
A properly sized trunked system wouldn't be impacted by those extra users. Setting up talkgroup/user priorities correctly solved most issues.

But, Motorola and the UC cut a lot of corners. Too many assumptions made by people on the UC side that barely knew which end of the radio to talk into, never mind design a system. We found a lot of issues with the design and setup of ours that bit us in the keester later on.

The systems worked, for their purpose, and for way longer than anyone at motorola ever intended it to be for that matter. I do not know about other campuses but the PD being in charge of it was a terrible idea. No outright radio professional to handle the work, period. nobody want to pay for it and the number of radios that were bought over the years for special projects and purposes was ridiculous, but thats big little bureaucratic spending for ya.
Yeah, I ran mine until 2011, but at that time "running" it was a bit of a loose term. It ran when it wanted to, and puked all over itself frequently. Those lovely leaky caps, repeaters that would wander around on the spectrum like a drunk, and user radios that hadn't been maintained since new.

I know a few campuses had the PD's "own" the system, but most were smarter than that. Most fell under Telecom. That worked well since ours and probably most others were wireline'd to dispatch. Programming was comparable to a telephone system. Now with more and more radio going to IP, having it under the general IT heading works well, although occasionally I get asked why we are not just using WiFi handsets for everyone.

To this day, I occasionally get someone showing up with a 1990's era MTS-2000 and want to know why it no longer works. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't get some people to understand. Too many radios stuffed in drawers for an "emergency", never to see the light of day.
 

pcorrin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
19
Location
riverside ca
Yeah, but not against the rules. What it did do is get a larger/better system than individual departments could have done on their own. Remember, at the time P16 and 800MHz was going to solve everyone's radio issues. Forgot how many times I was told that "everyone" was going to 800MHz….
A properly sized trunked system wouldn't be impacted by those extra users. Setting up talkgroup/user priorities correctly solved most issues.

I cant count the number of large events that when operating an EOC and many different departments doing so much, for a commencement ceremony etc the number of PTT that would get bounced because of normal PD patrol during these events and only so many conversations being held at the same time. The res halls and physical plant should have never been on the trunking system.


But, Motorola and the UC cut a lot of corners. Too many assumptions made by people on the UC side that barely knew which end of the radio to talk into, never mind design a system. We found a lot of issues with the design and setup of ours that bit us in the keester later on.

To be fair the non existent training for the radios happened on campuses and hell for that matter dozens of other agencies ive seen all over and is a huge problem even today with everyone. the 800 worked great for the most part until we were in basement of all these concrete and brick buildings or in the steam tunnels lol



Yeah, I ran mine until 2011, but at that time "running" it was a bit of a loose term. It ran when it wanted to, and puked all over itself frequently. Those lovely leaky caps, repeaters that would wander around on the spectrum like a drunk, and user radios that hadn't been maintained since new.

Bubble gum and ebay parts kept riverside's going for as long as it did. I know for a fact not one radio of the probably few thousand ever had maintenance done.

I know a few campuses had the PD's "own" the system, but most were smarter than that. Most fell under Telecom. That worked well since ours and probably most others were wireline'd to dispatch. Programming was comparable to a telephone system. Now with more and more radio going to IP, having it under the general IT heading works well, although occasionally I get asked why we are not just using WiFi handsets for everyone.

To this day, I occasionally get someone showing up with a 1990's era MTS-2000 and want to know why it no longer works. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't get some people to understand. Too many radios stuffed in drawers for an "emergency", never to see the light of day.
Last year while working at a county we had a probation officer bring one of their vans in and asked us to look at his radio that didnt work, it was an mcs2000 that wouldnt have worked for at least a year prior.
 
Top