WISCOM Thread (all posts regarding WISCOM go here)

[DVINTHEHOUSEMAN]

I don't think there's been a reason for it, it's been showing as a neighbor for a few months now but never once have I heard it. It shows connected but it says stale instead of current like the rest of the neighbors. It could just be a site config issue, but i'm not sure.

 

[prowisscan]

A few weeks ago, there was an article about the removal of a tower on top of Sanburg Hall on the UW Milwaukee campus. Is this where the Wiscom tower site was located?

 

[Paul-W]

A few weeks ago, there was an article about the removal of a tower on top of Sanburg Hall on the UW Milwaukee campus. Is this where the Wiscom tower site was located?

I know there were a few repeaters and transmitters for a few systems that were located on that tower. The city of Milwaukee had a transmitter there for their Harris Opensky system and it was also a Wiscom site. Does anyone know if these are still atop this building or did they get moved elsewhere when the tower was removed recently?

 

[radio241]

WISCOM is still on Sandburg Hall.

 

[radio241]

I don't think there's been a reason for it, it's been showing as a neighbor for a few months now but never once have I heard it. It shows connected but it says stale instead of current like the rest of the neighbors. It could just be a site config issue, but i'm not sure.

Maybe due to SOW use at the Birkebeiner...?

 

[west-pac]

I've noticed the SOW is in the PRO96Com neighbor list for the Mellen tower but is showing "stale", however I see it in the packet dump *and* when I delete all the neighbors out of the tower file it just repopulates stale. I can't receive the SOW so it's not broadcasting within range. Does anyone else see it as a neighbor on different sites around the state?

Site 1.94 is showing Site 1.199 (SOW) as an outdated neighbor.

 

[west-pac]

I've noticed the SOW is in the PRO96Com neighbor list for the Mellen tower but is showing "stale", however I see it in the packet dump *and* when I delete all the neighbors out of the tower file it just repopulates stale. I can't receive the SOW so it's not broadcasting within range. Does anyone else see it as a neighbor on different sites around the state?

Site 1.12 is showing 1.199 as an outdated neighbor.

Not all sites that I'm seeing show 1.199 as a neighbor.

 

[19-685]

VHF Greenfield Site (1.94) is also showing 1.199 as a "stale" connection - see below.

Just a guess...

Site on Wheels may have been utilized a couple of weeks ago for the Republican Debate event in Milwaukee, or perhaps for Wisconsin State Fair???

Perhaps the system hasn't "refreshed" since that time....

 

[19-685]

800 Greenfield Site (1.243) is also showing Site on Wheels (1.199) as "stale"

 

[OpSec]

I know there were a few repeaters and transmitters for a few systems that were located on that tower. The city of Milwaukee had a transmitter there for their Harris Opensky system and it was also a Wiscom site. Does anyone know if these are still atop this building or did they get moved elsewhere when the tower was removed recently?

The existing public safety users, except one, are still at the site and were either minimally impacted or not impacted at all by the tower removal. The biggest impact was to the ham repeater there, which was on the tower since 1981 and the longest continuous tenant at the site. They lost 200 feet of transmit height.

 

[OpSec]

As for the SOW, you guys will see it in the neighbors list of just about all sites...or at least any of them that are near where the SOW has ever been deployed.

The short answer is in order for SU's to most effectively roam onto the SOW when it's deployed, the SOW has to be in the adjacent site list of the fixed RF sites so that it's included in the CC message about what adjacent sites are available to a SU.

 

[west-pac]

As for the SOW, you guys will see it in the neighbors list of just about all sites...or at least any of them that are near where the SOW has ever been deployed.

The short answer is in order for SU's to most effectively roam onto the SOW when it's deployed, the SOW has to be in the adjacent site list of the fixed RF sites so that it's included in the CC message about what adjacent sites are available to a SU.

I've monitored most statewide P25 systems in the Midwest, and none of the sites have a SOW in their NLs as a permanent neighbor. WISCOM is not that way either. From Indiana, I probably have a dozen submissions of data to the WISCOM system over the years, and none of the sites that I've monitored, up until lately, have had the SOW in the NL.

 

[MarcusDude]

Is WISCOM still adding new VHF sites? I'm receiving site 1.26 in eastern Indiana, but 1.26 isn't listed in the DB.

Here's the info I have:

152.6375 CC
155.565 ACC
155.9475 ACC

NAC: B09
NL: 1.27, 1.28, 1.103, 1.111, 1.136
(none of these list 1.26 as a neighbor)

This should be Phelps (Vilas County) Callsign: KQN911

 

[OpSec]

I've monitored most statewide P25 systems in the Midwest, and none of the sites have a SOW in their NLs as a permanent neighbor. WISCOM is not that way either. From Indiana, I probably have a dozen submissions of data to the WISCOM system over the years, and none of the sites that I've monitored, up until lately, have had the SOW in the NL.

The SOW very much has been in the neighbors list of quite a few VHF sites since around 2012 or so. The ongoing focus is on fixed sites that the SOW operates around when it's deployed, which means that it will pop up in neighbor lists occasionally that it hasn't before. It's also very possible as software updates have been done to the system that it was removed from some sites that it used to be shown from.

Something to look at sometime now that it's being discussed.

 

[west-pac]

The SOW very much has been in the neighbors list of quite a few VHF sites since around 2012 or so. The ongoing focus is on fixed sites that the SOW operates around when it's deployed, which means that it will pop up in neighbor lists occasionally that it hasn't before. It's also very possible as software updates have been done to the system that it was removed from some sites that it used to be shown from.

Something to look at sometime now that it's being discussed.

I have 71 WISCOM sites logged on DSD+, all of them logged within the past ~7 years. Only 5 of the sites I've logged have the SOW as neighbor. The DSD+ log document doesn't have the date that each site was received and added to the log, but if you scroll back thru the forum here, and see where I comment: "(x.xx) site has the SOW listed as a neighbor." it probably gets pretty close to that 5 number that mentioned earlier. Out of the 71 sites that I have received, only recently have I received sites that list the SOW as a neighbor.

 

[OpSec]

I have 71 WISCOM sites logged on DSD+, all of them logged within the past ~7 years. Only 5 of the sites I've logged have the SOW as neighbor. The DSD+ log document doesn't have the date that each site was received and added to the log, but if you scroll back thru the forum here, and see where I comment: "(x.xx) site has the SOW listed as a neighbor." it probably gets pretty close to that 5 number that mentioned earlier. Out of the 71 sites that I have received, only recently have I received sites that list the SOW as a neighbor.

The system is up to 140 sites now, so that's half you've not logged. I just spot-checked 10 random sites and 5 of them have the SOW listed as a neighbor.

However, to solve this from being an issue in scanner land and for the users I'm going to add the SOW to the neighbors list of every site and then this won't be an issue for anyone

 

[west-pac]

The system is up to 140 sites now, so that's half you've not logged. I just spot-checked 10 random sites and 5 of them have the SOW listed as a neighbor.

However, to solve this from being an issue in scanner land and for the users I'm going to add the SOW to the neighbors list of every site and then this won't be an issue for anyone

It -WILL- be an issue. You're making false statements by adding it to every site when, in fact, is has NOT been received on every site. That's not how the RRDB works. Read your Admin manual.

 

[OpSec]

It -WILL- be an issue. You're making false statements by adding it to every site when, in fact, is has NOT been received on every site. That's not how the RRDB works. Read your Admin manual.

You're missing my point. I'm talking about the radio system, not the RRdB.

 

[west-pac]

You're missing my point. I'm talking about the radio system, not the RRdB.

Thats won't be beneficial to anyone. If the SOW is a peer of every site, as soon as the SOW is deployed, it will be overwhelmed with traffic from the neighboring counties, no matter where it is deployed in the state. Also, the inverse will happen. If the SOW is setup for a specific event, to keep Event radio traffic off of the surrounding sites, that will be voided if they're peers.

 

[OpSec]

Thats won't be beneficial to anyone. If the SOW is a peer of every site, as soon as the SOW is deployed, it will be overwhelmed with traffic from the neighboring counties, no matter where it is deployed in the state. Also, the inverse will happen. If the SOW is setup for a specific event, to keep Event radio traffic off of the surrounding sites, that will be voided if they're peers.

That's not how it works. Happy scanning.