box23
Member
The Wausau patch to TG 144 is still active, as it always has been amid the numerous reports that all WSP traffic had been taken off the system.
box23
Member
I believe DGLAW1, DGFIRE1, and DGPAGE are forced to all County sites. They are also on Lampson and Iron River. The Highway talkgroups, ERT, etc. appear to only follow affiliations.
I have noticed that the Maple CC disappears at times during a Superior FD dispatch. It appears to be a mix between voice channels at the multiple sites carrying the traffic as the sites cycle through their voice channels as the dispatcher keys and unkeys. It's highly variable and looks to be greatly dependent on what and how many talkgroups are being selected simultaneously. I have only seen this on a scanner and haven't noticed similar on a commercial radio. May be some of what you were seeing. However I have never had trouble decoding the control channel otherwise.
The Parkland site will be getting a new tower. The tower crew may have been some pre-work for that.
The DGGCEMS talkgroup does appear to be sporadic. Generally it could always be found on Bennett which I attributed to a control station being on 24/7 at the Hawthorne station. Lately, I noticed it appearing on Lampson and Iron River a lot more, and not as much on Bennett. Possibly the control station site hunting, being turned off, or changing talkgroups. I have noticed it to never be on Superior, but usually will show up on Parkland. Possibly a traffic leveling move.
Red Cliff is very impressive for coverage because of it's location relative to Lake Superior. I can affiliate to it and obtain channel grants from lake level in Grand Marais, MN with my issued portable radio.
The license for the Port Wing site was granted on November 10th. Build out should be nearing completion. The tower work had been done previously, and last I knew an additional repeater was the only component remaining. The hybrid site has been taken off the air recently.
sfd119
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
Yeah, I only monitor Lampson for the most part, Gold Cross EMS seems to be on there every other day, all day.
I didn't have my phone (camera) ready as I passed the Parkland tower, so I turned around and took a shot of the riggers on it. Note the lack of snow for this time of year... Getting a rigging job in winter in that part of the state can't be too much fun.
WRT Douglas traffic, including Gold Cross - something was definitely up during the time I was in the coverage area. I didn't have time to pull over and figure out what might be going on. I may linger the next time I pass through, which should be in much nicer conditions. Gold Cross certainly is busy and chatty these days (they've gone to 12 hour shifts as they couldn't get any sleep with the call volume increasing over the years, quite a change from just 302 and 303 for the whole city), so I could see that the traffic is a load and generally not useful for Douglas county for the most part.
I've never had a problem in decoding CC with the setup I have; if I can hear it well, it will decode. Maple was not decoding at all. I did see elsewhere that WISCOM sites have been found to be malfunctioning and have needed to be rebooted, so perhaps that was the case here as well. The days where I couldn't decode were holiday/weekend days, and the last day was a working day, so perhaps someone noticed and fixed the issue. Site coverage overlaps widely for mobiles and the system isn't very loaded, so losing a site for a while may not get noticed, but it shouldn't happen - ever.
In looking at ULS just now, I still don't see a license issued for Port Wing. Yes, the application is in progress, but there is no callsign issued as of yet, but I'm sure that's forthcoming. I just didn't want to spent time programming in sites and generating coverage maps for sites not yet on the air.
Edited to add:
In the RRDB, many WISCOM sites say "None assigned" when this is not the case. A search in ULS constrained to Wisconsin/State of Wisconsin and YW license type in the VHF range will show nearly all sites. Yes, WISCOM started out with a large number of military (e.g., not licensed by the FCC) frequencies, but sites that have even one frequency in the normal VHF ranges will show up in the ULS.
WRT Douglas traffic, including Gold Cross - something was definitely up during the time I was in the coverage area. I didn't have time to pull over and figure out what might be going on. I may linger the next time I pass through, which should be in much nicer conditions. Gold Cross certainly is busy and chatty these days (they've gone to 12 hour shifts as they couldn't get any sleep with the call volume increasing over the years, quite a change from just 302 and 303 for the whole city), so I could see that the traffic is a load and generally not useful for Douglas county for the most part.
I've never had a problem in decoding CC with the setup I have; if I can hear it well, it will decode. Maple was not decoding at all. I did see elsewhere that WISCOM sites have been found to be malfunctioning and have needed to be rebooted, so perhaps that was the case here as well. The days where I couldn't decode were holiday/weekend days, and the last day was a working day, so perhaps someone noticed and fixed the issue. Site coverage overlaps widely for mobiles and the system isn't very loaded, so losing a site for a while may not get noticed, but it shouldn't happen - ever.
In looking at ULS just now, I still don't see a license issued for Port Wing. Yes, the application is in progress, but there is no callsign issued as of yet, but I'm sure that's forthcoming. I just didn't want to spent time programming in sites and generating coverage maps for sites not yet on the air.
Edited to add:
In the RRDB, many WISCOM sites say "None assigned" when this is not the case. A search in ULS constrained to Wisconsin/State of Wisconsin and YW license type in the VHF range will show nearly all sites. Yes, WISCOM started out with a large number of military (e.g., not licensed by the FCC) frequencies, but sites that have even one frequency in the normal VHF ranges will show up in the ULS.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
box23
Member
WQWS819 - Port Wing
That picture is actually not the Parkland site, at least not currently. That is the new monopole at the State's new Weight Station #71 (If they are even using the numbers anymore).
The antenna array does suggest a lot more equipment going in than the previous Station, however I believe all new/upgraded State sites are getting a full antenna complement for future expansion. Similar to the Grand View site where there is only 2 confirmed "systems" in place. Chances are also pretty good of having some receivers for various systems, whether voting or not.
Parkland is a couple miles NW of there. WQRP969. Last I knew the new tower was being built on City/County-owned land near it's current location.
That picture is actually not the Parkland site, at least not currently. That is the new monopole at the State's new Weight Station #71 (If they are even using the numbers anymore).
The antenna array does suggest a lot more equipment going in than the previous Station, however I believe all new/upgraded State sites are getting a full antenna complement for future expansion. Similar to the Grand View site where there is only 2 confirmed "systems" in place. Chances are also pretty good of having some receivers for various systems, whether voting or not.
Parkland is a couple miles NW of there. WQRP969. Last I knew the new tower was being built on City/County-owned land near it's current location.
Hearing native P25 traffic on Tomah TG 115. WSP 512 is pretty active tonight on the Baraboo site. Looks like Tomah post may be trying things out on Wiscom ?
Also looks like DeForest Post is now rebroadcasting their analog stuff on TG 114.
Also looks like DeForest Post is now rebroadcasting their analog stuff on TG 114.
I did not hear all of the conversations, however TG 17001 (Dunn SO) has been very active for about the last hour with a discussion on how useless the radio system is. My guess is they are talking about WISCOM. I heard someone describe it as a system problem not a location problem. Numerous radio tests are being done as units clear the "incident".
Some very unhappy deputies that is for sure.
That is all I know. Not trying to start something----just putting on for those who are interested.
Some very unhappy deputies that is for sure.
That is all I know. Not trying to start something----just putting on for those who are interested.
box23
Member
Except in rare circumstances the audio quality of a talkgroup will be identical on all sites it is transmitting from.
Tonight I'm hearing off Holcombe tower and it sounds fairly decent. Just heard 712 call Bennett with a car and wrecker in ditch. Nice to hear Spooner Post At least the little traffic there is.
With the information Box23 put on here I'm going to assume VHF side isn't that good? I don't get to hear the VHF side that much to tell.
With the information Box23 put on here I'm going to assume VHF side isn't that good? I don't get to hear the VHF side that much to tell.
sfd119
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
You usually only hear Spooner Post on VHF. With the patch, you can now hear all cars in the region which is nice.
WISCOM Sustainability Study - tidbits
I was right that the study is due this year, RFP was out in December, proposals due last month, there were questions submitted on the RFP, I'll cover those below. Award is anticipated this month, with an immediate start and a staggered completion calendar, with some items due within 3 months, some in 6, and some in 7 months.
I had a bit of concern that this would be an internal study, this is not the case. However, I do now have concern that this is a politically motivated study, as it came in the "Motion 999" part of the budget, which has been used recently for some, uh, "interesting" activities, but I'll leave that for others to look into. Unfortunately, building something that's expensive and not having it be used very much will sometimes raise eyebrows. Who knew?
If anyone wants to look directly at the documents, you can search "WISCOM sustainability study" and/or "999 WISCOM RFP" and you'll see them quickly. The RFP number is 2016-04, but I suspect you'll see a lot of hits if you just search for that alone.
The relevant deliverables in the study will be (verbatim):
• Develop recommendations to solve the system issues being experienced by some daily users of WISCOM, which operate on WISCOM core and WISCOM enhancement sites
• Provide an analysis of current WISCOM operations, infrastructure, equipment, technology and financial support comparing against similar statewide radio systems
• Develop a plan for a management, implementation and support program that will be sustainable for the next 3, 5 and 10 years
• Develop a plan for funding and support of the WI SCIP, February 2015, as well as the Wisconsin Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, Interoperability Council and Regional Interoperability Coordinators, in support [of] interoperability. [sic]
So all of that is interesting on it's own, but those of you familiar with the RFP process know that there are tidbits to be found in the Q&A documents; this is where vendors get to ask questions of the state, and the state answers all of the questions at once, not revealing who asked the question.
Here, we find that the daily users experiencing issues are Juneau County, City of Greenfield, Dunn County and the City of Fond du Lac.
The list of daily users is pretty much what we all know here, the above agencies plus Douglas, Kewaunee, Sawyer and Iowa counties, plus Lifestar Ambulance.
In the Q&A document, it's mentioned that the State Patrol will come on line "this summer" and that will be 2,000 users. I find this a very high number as the WSP is highly limited in terms of trooper and inspectors, it's down around the 400-500 mark. I doubt everyone has 4-5 radios, and radios != users in any case. In the same response they give a 10,000 user figure, which I suspect is highly inflated; but a good & independent study will smoke that out.
Just realized that Exhibit A has some of the more interesting questions to be answered in the study, and while it's in PDF form it's clearly scanned in and therefore not searchable. I may transcribe it if I find the time.
There are also good questions around VHF, interference, and multicast vs. simulcast.
In looking around these documents and other related documents, there are/have been issues with the sites. As I've mentioned before, the traffic levels are so low, it would be hard to know when these issues crop up, but clearly they are happening.
I was right that the study is due this year, RFP was out in December, proposals due last month, there were questions submitted on the RFP, I'll cover those below. Award is anticipated this month, with an immediate start and a staggered completion calendar, with some items due within 3 months, some in 6, and some in 7 months.
I had a bit of concern that this would be an internal study, this is not the case. However, I do now have concern that this is a politically motivated study, as it came in the "Motion 999" part of the budget, which has been used recently for some, uh, "interesting" activities, but I'll leave that for others to look into. Unfortunately, building something that's expensive and not having it be used very much will sometimes raise eyebrows. Who knew?
If anyone wants to look directly at the documents, you can search "WISCOM sustainability study" and/or "999 WISCOM RFP" and you'll see them quickly. The RFP number is 2016-04, but I suspect you'll see a lot of hits if you just search for that alone.
The relevant deliverables in the study will be (verbatim):
• Develop recommendations to solve the system issues being experienced by some daily users of WISCOM, which operate on WISCOM core and WISCOM enhancement sites
• Provide an analysis of current WISCOM operations, infrastructure, equipment, technology and financial support comparing against similar statewide radio systems
• Develop a plan for a management, implementation and support program that will be sustainable for the next 3, 5 and 10 years
• Develop a plan for funding and support of the WI SCIP, February 2015, as well as the Wisconsin Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, Interoperability Council and Regional Interoperability Coordinators, in support [of] interoperability. [sic]
So all of that is interesting on it's own, but those of you familiar with the RFP process know that there are tidbits to be found in the Q&A documents; this is where vendors get to ask questions of the state, and the state answers all of the questions at once, not revealing who asked the question.
Here, we find that the daily users experiencing issues are Juneau County, City of Greenfield, Dunn County and the City of Fond du Lac.
The list of daily users is pretty much what we all know here, the above agencies plus Douglas, Kewaunee, Sawyer and Iowa counties, plus Lifestar Ambulance.
In the Q&A document, it's mentioned that the State Patrol will come on line "this summer" and that will be 2,000 users. I find this a very high number as the WSP is highly limited in terms of trooper and inspectors, it's down around the 400-500 mark. I doubt everyone has 4-5 radios, and radios != users in any case. In the same response they give a 10,000 user figure, which I suspect is highly inflated; but a good & independent study will smoke that out.
Just realized that Exhibit A has some of the more interesting questions to be answered in the study, and while it's in PDF form it's clearly scanned in and therefore not searchable. I may transcribe it if I find the time.
There are also good questions around VHF, interference, and multicast vs. simulcast.
In looking around these documents and other related documents, there are/have been issues with the sites. As I've mentioned before, the traffic levels are so low, it would be hard to know when these issues crop up, but clearly they are happening.
I used the search terms that "sixtytwo" provided however I was not able to bring anything up other than the legal part of the bid package which was a 9 page document. I could get none of the data that was quoted in the article. Anyway that it could be scanned in? I would be very interested in reading them. Thank you ahead of time.
That was the State of Wisconsin. Exactly who, dunno.
Hmmm... can't edit my last post for some reason.
In any case, I've found legislative limits to sworn troopers at 380 (2010) and 399 (2006), so not only is it a low number overall, it's also a low number in regards to the population of the state, and also looks to be decreasing.
Didn't find any limits to motor carrier inspectors, but those are just a fraction of the trooper number.
Bottom line, the 2000 figure is fiction, and the 10,000 user number is also likely highly inflated.
In any case, I've found legislative limits to sworn troopers at 380 (2010) and 399 (2006), so not only is it a low number overall, it's also a low number in regards to the population of the state, and also looks to be decreasing.
Didn't find any limits to motor carrier inspectors, but those are just a fraction of the trooper number.
Bottom line, the 2000 figure is fiction, and the 10,000 user number is also likely highly inflated.
Similar threads
