Since you are soliciting information, though, you forgot the location info again.:roll: Squirrel Hill site. But even with your faults we still have the cleanest database entry!!
Handled.
- Status
Handled.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 866
- Reaction score
- 19
Wiscom
Ya know, that`s what i had thought was going to happen when WISCOM is finished, i was getting the inference that eventually all the counties in Wisconsin were going to be on WISCOM and ether sack their old channels or use them for backup when WISCOM goes down. Personally i wouldn`t mind seeing the whole state do the move, considering how some of the conventional systems that are up now sound, that is to say they sound not too good, i think switching to WISCOM would be a good idea, and since they gotta go narrow digital soon anyway, why not do the WISCOM thingy and get it over with? Thoughts? N9NRA
Ya know, that`s what i had thought was going to happen when WISCOM is finished, i was getting the inference that eventually all the counties in Wisconsin were going to be on WISCOM and ether sack their old channels or use them for backup when WISCOM goes down. Personally i wouldn`t mind seeing the whole state do the move, considering how some of the conventional systems that are up now sound, that is to say they sound not too good, i think switching to WISCOM would be a good idea, and since they gotta go narrow digital soon anyway, why not do the WISCOM thingy and get it over with? Thoughts? N9NRA
Doubtful that will happen.
There are way way too many political and financial barriers in place. There is a lot happening behind the scenes with WISCOM that has turned many counties away from it. It may have worked with some states, but in WI ....na.
Most counties like the freedom to control their radio systems the way the see fit. If on WISCOM they are at the mercy of state administrators . The way it works now, if your local Sheriff want's to make a change, he can do so. If on WISCOM , then there are tons of red tape and politics to go through.
I could see how smaller counties may benefit from it, but for the majority...I don't see a mass joining of WISCOM like some had hoped.
djeplett
Member
Not to mention their coverage patterns would change. If a county running say 6 towers right now switched to WISCOM and it was running only a couple then coverage may lack in places the county agencies need it most.
Coverage patterns and not to mention hand held coverage would be down...way down. The WISCOM spec calls for 50 Watt mobile coverage for it's infrastructure.
From the info I have seen, if a county were to join WISCOM for day to day operations, they have the option (for a small fee) to have additional trunked sites in their county. This small fee is more money then ya think
From the info I have seen, if a county were to join WISCOM for day to day operations, they have the option (for a small fee) to have additional trunked sites in their county. This small fee is more money then ya think
box23
Member
The word is Sawyer County should be switching within the next 6 months or so.
Unrelated topic:
I was looking at the site coverage map yesterday and noticed the Wrenshall site isn't actually in Wrenshall. I assumed the site would be co-located on the Wrenshall tower with the ARMER Duluth simulcast sub site, but it seems to be co-located with the northwest sub site.
Unrelated topic:
I was looking at the site coverage map yesterday and noticed the Wrenshall site isn't actually in Wrenshall. I assumed the site would be co-located on the Wrenshall tower with the ARMER Duluth simulcast sub site, but it seems to be co-located with the northwest sub site.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 866
- Reaction score
- 19
You may very well be right there N3VIK, i also heard from a source around here that if a county wants to use the WISCOM system for day-to-day stuff they gotta pay for it, if for just EM stuff they don`t. If that be the case i could also see users backing away from switching and staying put with what they have, why pay to use a large, statwide TRS when the current system you have works, in other words, if it ain`t broken, don`t fix it. N9NRA
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 866
- Reaction score
- 19
And i just now had another thought, instead of trying to get folks to use this new WISCOM system, why not just give all the counties a talkgroup (or access to one of the STAC TG`s) instead of making them buy new radios and pay to have `em programmed, which, from what i`ve been told, is a lot of work. Wouldn`t that be easier than what they`re doing now (or gonna do)? I`m kinda getting the feeling that this whole idea of statewide TRS`s is kinda reinventing the wheel in a way, mabey i`m a bit off, but what of just using the WISCOM system is a link, and having all the county folks (EOC`s and EM folks) have access to a statewide (and mabey an areawide) TG for use when they need interop? Good idea? Bad? Even doable? N9NRA
box23
Member
Andy, I think you are starting to confuse yourself. Once the system is built and operational some time this summer users will then be allowed to use the system for more than testing. So some time in the future all the counties, and agencies/departments since they can theoretically do something on their own, have to make a choice. The options are:
1. Do nothing, hopefully at least change to narrowband, fail to keep their current system maintained, stay completely analog to keep from having to deal with this new fangled digital stuff, and slowly drift into becoming somewhat of a radio island. This option is the cheapest in the short term. Not quite so much in the long term. Not even a solution if you care at all about anything.
2. Change to narrowband, fully maintain their current system, and just use the current interop channels because it works just fine for what you need. Nothing at all wrong with this option. Depending on the current system could be anywhere from not too expensive to beyond belief after a while.
3. Get a few radios on the system because it might be a good idea for interoperability. Maybe think about upgrading with more radios or higher level of WISCOM use. Other than that same as option two. Using WISCOM in this way would be free.
3.a. For transient type operations such as long distance patient/prisoner transfers have some radios to be able to communicate with whoever you need to such as jail/base/dispatch. This is the same as option 3 with just a little added functionality.
4. Since the county/agency has system compliant radios, add interoperability by programming all the radios for WISCOM use. Since this is still only using the system at an interop level you keep your current system the same as option 3.
5. Starting transitioning users over to WISCOM for everyday use. Use of the system at this level and higher does cost at a per radio per month rate. With this option costs might be offset by not having to maintain all parts of current system. Such as moving from a complicated voted law channel, but keeping the standalone repeaters of the fire channel.
6 and up. Move all operations over to WISCOM, keep a minimal system for paging and backup, get sites added to provide portable coverage, or not. These options provide almost 100% interoperability either with other system users, patches to other systems either within the state or other state systems, patches to base stations (VLAW31, IFERN,...), or with the conventional mutual aid/interop channels that everyone has. This does cost, but may be anywhere from the same to many times less than the current system depending on a lot of factors.
This is a quick explanation, but hopefully it makes enough sense. Most agencies already have system capable radios because of grants for the past few years. The latest grants produced radios that only need to be programmed to work on the system. Earlier grant radios are digital trunking capable but most need upgraded firmware to work on the system. A small fraction of the cost of the radio.
Option 3, 3a, and 4 use the interop talkgroups including the STACs and RTACs and possibly the county COM and TRVL talkgroups. I'm not sure exactly how the COM and TRVL talkgroups fit into the plan, I have only seen/heard reference to them a couple times.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 866
- Reaction score
- 19
Yeah, that does make sense to me, it`s just that i`ve heard so much "splatter" about this from both sides of the field on this that it`s getting confusing to almost everyone i personally know around here, i still recall the County Board meeting i worked when they discussed it, and that `un was intresting to watch (and re-watch when we reran it on the PAC channels the next day
). Thing is, i`d been told sometime back when this all started that eventually ALL counties would be on WISCOM, and the conventional stuff for the most part would go away. Now personally i hope some of it stays around, as when one really looks at it, there`s still a place for good ol` conventional two-way radio...be it analog or digital (just ask any of us hams about that one ). Thanx for the info. 73. N9NRAbox23
Member
Heard a lot of testing today. TECH 101, 103, and 105 in use on Bennett, Lampson, and Hayward. Mostly SE radio IDs. Heard mention of being at the "academy," rid i502.
box23
Member
Identified TG 55511 as Sawyer Common, SWCOM.
box23
Member
Yes, appears to be offline.
W7LES
Member
WISCOM user fees
Howdy all:
Interesting discussion on the different options & choices that WI agencies can consider re updating & narrowbanding. It is much the same here in Wyoming; major difference is that there are no user fees for an agency to use the statewide VHF WyoLink DTR system. A couple of agencies here have decided to use 800 for local comms; they pick up the costs to build their local sites which are then connected into the state system same as a VHF site. This provides an automatic seamless cross-connect between VHF and 800 - talkgroup WXYZ in a VHF radio and talkgroup WXYZ in a 800 radio are directly connected. The system sees 2 radios on the same talkgroup on 2 different sites and hooks them together - the system neither knows nor cares what frequency band the radio sites & subscribers are using. Only catch is that the 800 band users have to understand that when they leave the coverage area of their site, they are off the air - while the VHF band users continue to enjoy statewide coverage.
More info about WyoLink in the Wyoming forum (of course!).
Regards,
Larry
Howdy all:
Interesting discussion on the different options & choices that WI agencies can consider re updating & narrowbanding. It is much the same here in Wyoming; major difference is that there are no user fees for an agency to use the statewide VHF WyoLink DTR system. A couple of agencies here have decided to use 800 for local comms; they pick up the costs to build their local sites which are then connected into the state system same as a VHF site. This provides an automatic seamless cross-connect between VHF and 800 - talkgroup WXYZ in a VHF radio and talkgroup WXYZ in a 800 radio are directly connected. The system sees 2 radios on the same talkgroup on 2 different sites and hooks them together - the system neither knows nor cares what frequency band the radio sites & subscribers are using. Only catch is that the 800 band users have to understand that when they leave the coverage area of their site, they are off the air - while the VHF band users continue to enjoy statewide coverage.
More info about WyoLink in the Wyoming forum (of course!).
Regards,
Larry
box23
Member
-- Lampson is back online. Same frequency, still no site ID showing.
-- Possibly another site online in D4. Heard testing to make sure all four bases were working properly. Might just have been to verify an already online site.
-- Mellen has switched down to it's 139 MHz primary control channel.
-- Heard first state agency other than radio techs today: two units from Dept. of Military Affairs talking between each other.
-- Possibly another site online in D4. Heard testing to make sure all four bases were working properly. Might just have been to verify an already online site.
-- Mellen has switched down to it's 139 MHz primary control channel.
-- Heard first state agency other than radio techs today: two units from Dept. of Military Affairs talking between each other.
box23
Member
Excerpt from a larger article in the Wednesday, April 20th Sawyer County Record:
Maybe someone who reads reporter-speak better than me can help out, but it sounds like they are going to add a new site at Pipestone, something, but not sure what, at Draper, and hopefully a microwave link, not just an appliance, at the LEC for the consoles.
Maybe someone who reads reporter-speak better than me can help out, but it sounds like they are going to add a new site at Pipestone, something, but not sure what, at Draper, and hopefully a microwave link, not just an appliance, at the LEC for the consoles.
WISCOM question.
Greetings folks. In anticipation of the summer travel season I have loaded the RR WISCOM system for northwestern WI into my Pro 106. It appears to be doing what it is supposed to however it seems to scan really slow? Slower than the MN ARMER stuff I have programmed in anyway. What I did was load up all the site's (control and alternate channels, roughly 10 sites) that I beleived I would need as well as the talk groups. It just really seems to be sand-bagging? Would I have better luck splitting it into two or three banks or just leave as is? Also, which talk groups do you guys hear the most stuff on? Suggestions, opinions and advice are always welcome! Thanks in advance!
Greetings folks. In anticipation of the summer travel season I have loaded the RR WISCOM system for northwestern WI into my Pro 106. It appears to be doing what it is supposed to however it seems to scan really slow? Slower than the MN ARMER stuff I have programmed in anyway. What I did was load up all the site's (control and alternate channels, roughly 10 sites) that I beleived I would need as well as the talk groups. It just really seems to be sand-bagging? Would I have better luck splitting it into two or three banks or just leave as is? Also, which talk groups do you guys hear the most stuff on? Suggestions, opinions and advice are always welcome! Thanks in advance!
Rock Co
From what i hear Rock county is coming up with there own trunking for there countywide day to day communications... But i have not seen or heard anything other than whats on there webpage.. does anyone know if they would be going onto WISCOM?
From what i hear Rock county is coming up with there own trunking for there countywide day to day communications... But i have not seen or heard anything other than whats on there webpage.. does anyone know if they would be going onto WISCOM?
I doubt it.
In other news, almost 60 sites are online and functioning withing the wide area network (as opposed to site trunking only). The number of fully functional sites is increases on a weekly, if not daily, basis.
Radio traffic continues to be spotty, just due to the low amount of authorized radios/users on the system. Look for this to increase over the summer/fall as the system comes completely online and more agencies get radios on the system. Several very successful wide area tests have taken place over the last few weeks, including console patches to systems in other states.
- Status
Similar threads
