WISCOM (2010)

[OpSec]

If I was hearing Wausau on WisCom Waukesha, that is about 200 miles from my location.

I was asking because it didn't sound like any thing local around here. I kept hearing Avenue street locations. So I was thing Kenosha, but I know that couldn't be right.

Keep in mind that WISCOM is truly a statewide radio system. Right now there is a lot of "beta testing" on the system that will not be there once the system is live.

The way the system handles audio and talkgroup routing is different than most people are used to. As system users move around the state, they will be dragging all sorts of talkgroups to various towers which mean things like hearing Marathon county traffic on a tower clear across the state. All of these things are part of system testing.

 

[N9NRA]

JGP, another way to think of how WISCOM works is to think of it like your cellphone, as you move theough the cellullar network your handset will switch to the next tower in the system (usually the "nearest and clearest" one) automatically, same with WISCOM, the radios will take the next nearest site in the system, again usually the "nearest and clearest" one. Ya know, when ya think on it, WISCOM is, IMHO, a really fun (yes, i meant fun ) and intresting system to monitor, and it will only get better once it`s opened up for use. I for one have found listening to this one to be really intresting, for the reasons i`ve mentioned (the way the system works and how good it sounds, for one). N9NRA

 

[JGP]

From what you guys say, WISCOM will be one of the best systems in the scanner to listen to. I have been hearing them again today, and it does make scanning fun.

 

[N9NRA]

Wiscom

From what you guys say, WISCOM will be one of the best systems in the scanner to listen to. I have been hearing them again today, and it does make scanning fun.

That`s true, it will be a fun system to monitor, and a good one if you`re at all intrested in how trunking works, or at least intrested in learning how it works in the real world . And if i may give a shout out to OpSec for his smarts with this, i had the chance to learn about WISCOM a bit from him, and it`s really appreicated. Thanx for your knoledge . N9NRA

 

[OpSec]

JGP, right now some of the county scan talkgroups are showing up in odd places because of the testing going on with them. I'm fairly confident that once the system goes live, the scan TG's and some others that have been popping up will be locked down to only the relevant geographic part of the state or region. With only 4 voice channels per site by default, dragging all sorts of TG's all over the state would bog down the system pretty quick.

 

[N9NRA]

JGP, right now some of the county scan talkgroups are showing up in odd places because of the testing going on with them. I'm fairly confident that once the system goes live, the scan TG's and some others that have been popping up will be locked down to only the relevant geographic part of the state or region. With only 4 voice channels per site by default, dragging all sorts of TG's all over the state would bog down the system pretty quick.

Well, at least it`ll make listening to WISCOM really fun for a while, untill they lock down those TG`s . N9NRA

 

[ten96]

Help, does anyone know the offsets so I can program my BC796D

 

[JGP]

Wiscom

I see that WISCOM Racine and Milwaukee have been added to the database. These two will be good for me along with Waukesha and Walworth. I can't pickup Kenosha for some reason. I get a good signal from the south, but something must be blocking that repeater for me.

 

[Div106]

I have entered the Union Grove and Milwaukee sites this morning and so far I have not picked up a control channel for either site. On a side note, I heard that both State Patrol and DNR move to migrate to the system sometime in second quarter of 2012

 

[JGP]

I have entered the Union Grove and Milwaukee sites this morning and so far I have not picked up a control channel for either site. On a side note, I heard that both State Patrol and DNR move to migrate to the system sometime in second quarter of 2012

I have done the same. We should get the control channel when the sites start getting tested.

 

[N9GQG]

Phelps WISCOM site

In the latest update to the WISCOM database I noticed that site 111, Phelps, is listed as being in Oneida County. Phelps is actually in Vilas County. Also, checking the FCC database I noticed there is no license for the Phelps location. However, I have seen a map of WISCOM towers that listed the Phelps site as initially being at Clear Lake/Woodruff which is license WQLM 406. Many of the frequencies listed in the WQLM 406 license are the same for those listed for Phelps so the license location information in the FCC database for WQLM 406 must not have been updated yet.

 

[VASCAR2]

I was visiting my Daughter near Rockford Illinois over the weekend and programmed several of the WISCOM sites into my BC 996XT. I was using the pull up antenna and got very good signals from Kenosha and Monticello sites. I think the WISCOM VHF HB trunking will be better than Illinois and Indiana's 700/800 systems. The only disadvantage I've seen in using VHF HB is more interference during thunder storms. I don't know how thunder storms lightening will effect a digital VHF signal but I figure it will be better than analog but an electrical storm will degrade the range.

 

[ScanWI]

I think the WISCOM VHF HB trunking will be better than Illinois and Indiana's 700/800 systems.

This is very true, I have experienced better reception of VHF P25 systems such as Washington county's. Then the 800 systems in IL, IN, MN, and DE. The decode seems much better also.

Fund du Lac announced their involvement and plans for joining WISCOM
http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20111128/FON0101/111280332/Grants-will-used-police-radios

 

[R8000]

I think the WISCOM VHF HB trunking will be better than Illinois and Indiana's 700/800 systems. The only disadvantage I've seen in using VHF HB is more interference during thunder storms. I don't know how thunder storms lightening will effect a digital VHF signal but I figure it will be better than analog but an electrical storm will degrade the range.

VHF vs 700/800 MHZ is really dependent on a few things.

1. End user requirements

2. Availability of frequencies

3. Coverage/terrain

4. Infrastructure costs


If you wish to have decent building penetration, 700/800 MHZ is the way to go. VHF has poor building penetration. The systems would be designed to work based upon the end users requirements. It's true, you will need more sites in a 700/800 MHZ system to cover an area than a VHF system will need. The WSP overcomes this with the use of vehicle repeaters.

If you compare MN to WI, have a look at the cost of those two systems. Big big difference.

The engineering records show that WISCOM was designed to be used with a end user configuration of a 50 watt mobile radio with a roof mounted antenna.

When an agency jumps on board with WISCOM, they are given the choice to pay for another site(s) to be added in their area to give better handheld coverage.

 

[VASCAR2]

Your correct about building penetration is probably better for 700/800 than VHF HB however only a small portion of the Starcom 21 system in Illinois has adequate coverage to ensure in building service. Most of the troopers have an 800 vehicle repeater on their SC system which adds to the cost per unit. Almost all the road troopers are issued a mobile, portable and vehicle repeater except in a couple of districts. If I remember correctly the SC system use 20 or 25 Watt mobile radios. In the area where I work we identified some areas where the contractor installed the directional antennas in the improper orientation. Since Motorola owns the system and leases access to the individual agency it is very difficult to control how coverage issues are resolved. I think if the state had purchased the system and maintained the system just like a highway where anyone with a car and proper licensing can use the highway it would have been a more viable option for every state agency plus any and all local agencies.

If a local agency wants in building coverage Motorola makes accommodations in placing more towers and swapping the use of 700/800 frequencies the agency may have licensed. The ISP chose to go with a vendor supplied radio system with the intention of eliminating radio tech positions plus all VHF communication equipment. This was a stated goal of migrating to SC 21 however I'm not sure this will happen in the future or was ever more than a selling point.

In my humble opinion the ISP has a marginally better radio system now compared to coverage provided by the old VHF low and high band radio. If the state leadership had taken this on as a state project everyone could have ended up with a very good radio system. I hope you in Wisconsin can do a better job on the politics and actually get a system that meets the needs of the end users.

 

[R8000]

I hope you in Wisconsin can do a better job on the politics and actually get a system that meets the needs of the end users.

Oh the things I would love to say about that

 

[n9upc]

If you wish to have decent building penetration, 700/800 MHZ is the way to go. VHF has poor building penetration. The systems would be designed to work based upon the end users requirements. It's true, you will need more sites in a 700/800 MHZ system to cover an area than a VHF system will need. The WSP overcomes this with the use of vehicle repeaters.

If you compare MN to WI, have a look at the cost of those two systems. Big big difference.

The engineering records show that WISCOM was designed to be used with a end user configuration of a 50 watt mobile radio with a roof mounted antenna.

I understand the point you are trying to make about WISCOM and coverage of the two different bands but you have to look at a few things.

1.) 700/800 MHz was used in MN due to freq avail throughout the whole state. VHF was used in WI because some selling of VHF freq throughout the whole state.

2.) Cost between the two is much different because of 700/800 vs VHF. In addition when the ARMER System (MN) was started it was talked about to be a metro (Mnpls/St Paul) area only really. In addition it was also designed (and still is to this day in the 9 county metro region) to have 95% PORTABLE coverage with a radio on the hip at outside street level. No doubt that a TON of towers or locations would be needed for that back coverage. Whereas WISCOM did coverage based on a 50 watt mobile radio with ant in the center of the roof.


The thing that I will be sitting back and watching as the system grows is the capacity and current engineering/system design ideas that are currently in play. Most sites have either 4-5 channels per site, now subtract 1 for control channel purposes, and factor in the possibility of how the system will "push out" talk groups on towers even if no is affiliated to the system on said tower and your down to 2 or 3 channels left. Once the system gets loaded and you have community agencies (Hwy, Survey, etc..) that are not public safety chit-chatting while public safety is trying to use the system....well someone is going to bonk. Now I am sure these issues and such were taken into consideration and priority levels have been set and what not. Nevertheless, it will be interesting on how the State handles these growing issues with the system.

Now NO trunking system is perfect and I know that the system is in the neo-nat/new phase. But as with the MN system it will be interesting on how it grows or what changes it will take.

 

[OpSec]

I don't think the availability of certain frequencies drove the decision-making process for WISCOM, rather it was the fact that something like 85% of public safety in the state uses VHF. In addition to that, the amount of VHF infrastructure needed is significantly less than UHF or 700/800..especially for a system like WISCOM that is meant to be a mobile use system statewide. If you scan the web for articles from some of the counties that are coming onto WISCOM, you see that they are adding infrastructure in their jurisdiction to enhance portable coverage to their satisfaction.

I would think that MN picked 800 for ARMER because it was initially thought to be a regional multi-county system in the metro area where 800 MHz makes sense for building penetration, not statewide. The use of 700/800 in a large state like MN is baffling to me solely based on the increased amount of towers they need to achieve coverage.

 

[VASCAR2]

I agree that one of the driving forces for States like Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota going 700/800 is the available frequency space on VHF. I'm sure the VHF frequencies were not available especially in the metro areas plus the larger VHF footprint restricts the number of frequencies available. With the additional towers on 700/800 there is a greater profit margin for a company like Motorola. It's amazing the data on usage that is collected on a trunked system and it won't be difficult to identify towers that need additional channels assigned. Some of the rural towers on SC 21 have 3 channels but most are 4 or more.

 

[kb0uxv]

Another reason MN went 800 is difficulty with VHF freqs in the north due to Canada. There are also problems with 800 there, but not as bad as VHF. Note the number of simulcast sites in the north to maximize frequency use.