Worcester County

[ThePhotoGuy]

Looks like there was an Update at the Sep 4th Meeting.

Info starts on PG.40 (http://www.co.worcester.md.us/sites...s/Commissioner Meeting/packet/2018/090418.pdf)

 

[maus92]

Good to see progress. Interesting that they are talking about changes to the Berlin site - reorienting / changing antennas or antenna heights?

 

[maus92]

A bit of an update on the Worcester acceptance testing in letter dated 9/12 to the Commissioners.

 

[troymail]

Back home (finally!) in NC ... did lots of monitoring of systems during my almost 3 weeks of travel - from Charlotte NC to Frederick MD to the MD shore and OC and even some legacy Motorola systems and a new (?) 5 site Tier 3 DMR system in Bermuda (yes, Bermuda - we killed 5 days on a short cruise).

I guess the most interesting but possibly not surprising monitoring was on Wednesday as we were returning - probably 5-6 hours off shore from the Bay Bridge Tunnel.... My G5 was picking up the Kitty Hawk site of NC VIPER... Later in the evening, as we could see the lights on VA Beach, I was simultaneously receiving Dare County NC on the south side and the OC and Worcester systems on the north (one system at a time of course). Like I said, not all that surprising being on the water but kinda cool...

Lots to do here for storm cleanup but no real damage - again, surprising given that Florence rolled nearly directly over us almost two weeks ago. Thankfully, it dropped from a CAT 3/4 to a CAT 1 just before coming ashore about 15-20 mile east of us.

Anyway - once other priorities are taken care of (may take a few days), I need to go back over everything I captured - including (I think) what I believe were some reports of dead spots in Worcester and/or OC while I was there o/a 18/19 September....

BTW - recall that for quite a long time, the Worcester and OC EDACS systems were documented as separate systems but eventually they were merged in the RRDB as a single multi-site system.... Given what I believe I've seen now a couple of times over the last few months, it seems that although these two systems are different (different SysIDs), there appear to be many talkgroups being carried over between the systems (perhaps mostly county talkgroups on the OC system more than the other way around). I'm curious of the long term considerations for this in the RRDB since with two different SysIDs, they will likely always be kept as two systems but with many talkgroups duplicated between them.

 

[emtLarmy15]

I built mine as 1 system with 3 sites so i didn’t have to build duplicate talkgroups on both systems... Any talk group and or user can be very quickly given permission to operate on either system.

 

[troymail]

True - with custom you can do pretty much anything. However, in terms of systems coming from the RRDB/libraries into the scanners, the systems would need to be merged and/or the talkgroups need to be duplicated.

 

[maus92]

Back home (finally!) in NC ... did lots of monitoring of systems during my almost 3 weeks of travel - from Charlotte NC to Frederick MD to the MD shore and OC and even some legacy Motorola systems and a new (?) 5 site Tier 3 DMR system in Bermuda (yes, Bermuda - we killed 5 days on a short cruise).

I guess the most interesting but possibly not surprising monitoring was on Wednesday as we were returning - probably 5-6 hours off shore from the Bay Bridge Tunnel.... My G5 was picking up the Kitty Hawk site of NC VIPER... Later in the evening, as we could see the lights on VA Beach, I was simultaneously receiving Dare County NC on the south side and the OC and Worcester systems on the north (one system at a time of course). Like I said, not all that surprising being on the water but kinda cool...

Lots to do here for storm cleanup but no real damage - again, surprising given that Florence rolled nearly directly over us almost two weeks ago. Thankfully, it dropped from a CAT 3/4 to a CAT 1 just before coming ashore about 15-20 mile east of us.

Anyway - once other priorities are taken care of (may take a few days), I need to go back over everything I captured - including (I think) what I believe were some reports of dead spots in Worcester and/or OC while I was there o/a 18/19 September....

BTW - recall that for quite a long time, the Worcester and OC EDACS systems were documented as separate systems but eventually they were merged in the RRDB as a single multi-site system.... Given what I believe I've seen now a couple of times over the last few months, it seems that although these two systems are different (different SysIDs), there appear to be many talkgroups being carried over between the systems (perhaps mostly county talkgroups on the OC system more than the other way around). I'm curious of the long term considerations for this in the RRDB since with two different SysIDs, they will likely always be kept as two systems but with many talkgroups duplicated between them.

Glad to hear you're back home and your property didn't suffer too much - it is more about the flooding than the wind (usually.)

As for OC and Worcester, I find it interesting that you (and users you heard) were detecting or having some issues with reception (interference?), while the management of the system seems to be reporting nothing significant. The mid-September letter to the commissioners indicated there were no reported problems - I guess we'll need to wait for the next status update. Could be that users aren't documenting their issues religiously.

As for the RRDB policy about mapping / documenting "networked" systems, IMO if they have different SysIDs, then they should be published as unique systems even if they share or access some of the same TGs. My question is do the users have to physically change zones when they move between system coverage areas, or is it a seamless transition?

 

[troymail]

Glad to hear you're back home and your property didn't suffer too much - it is more about the flooding than the wind (usually.)

Thanks... yes, when we left, we were expecting the worst but hoping for the best.... hopefully we're done for at least this year!

As for OC and Worcester, I find it interesting that you (and users you heard) were detecting or having some issues with reception (interference?), while the management of the system seems to be reporting nothing significant. The mid-September letter to the commissioners indicated there were no reported problems - I guess we'll need to wait for the next status update. Could be that users aren't documenting their issues.

I agree - I'm hoping to find those recordings... I was only there a limited time so if I have them, they should not be hard to find. I will admit though that the reports could be for the OC system and not the Worcester system... on my last trip (late July?), I recall a few radio techs talking and actively being in dead spots during the conversation and commenting on it... but again, that might have been the OC system. I'll sort it all out in the coming days.

As for the RRDB policy about mapping / documenting "networked" systems, IMO if they have different SysIDs, then they should be published as unique systems even if they share or access some of the same TGs. My question is do the users have to physically change zones when they move between system coverage areas, or is it a seamless transition?

Agree - they are two different systems - clearly. I think there really were two different systems as EDACS as well but that doesn't matter much now.

As far as roaming - from what I saw in July, the systems are showing as neighbors in Pro96Com - connected. This is easier to see in Pro96Com down there than seeing it on say the PG/FiRST connection because they ensured that all of the site IDs are unique - 5, 10, 30, etc. (PG and FiRST both have a site 1/1 which makes it a bit less obvious on the Pro96Com display - actually, Pro96Com misnames the site(s)).

So, I suspect there are some talkgroups that are allowed to "roam" automatically between the systems. After all, although OC is an incorporated town, they are still in Worcester County. From what I recall, the county talkgroups seen on the OC system included at least some fire/ems response talkgroups and probably others.

 

[emtLarmy15]

All public safety can roam seamlessly between the two systems.

 

[troymail]

Makes perfect sense!

 

[emtLarmy15]

There are certain talkgroups forced onto each system (mostly for scanability) but most are on demand only (ie a user from pocomoke goes to court commissioner in ocean city, their talkgroup can roam to ocean city).

 

[troymail]

Again, makes sense... sounds like most any other (single) multi-site system... things like fire dispatch, etc. may be carried on all sites at all times (forced) while other talkgroups are only active on a site if (a) a user is actively monitoring a given talkgroup and (b) that user is affiliated with a given site. Once they roam off and no user is on that site/talkgroup, you no longer hear that talkgroup on that site....

The only different here is that the sites are on two different systems - almost acting as one system. This is obviously a good thing in terms of potential "coverage" issues...

 

[emtLarmy15]

Harris calls it multi region

 

[troymail]

It could actually be seen alot more in the future - at least for some talkgroups across systems. With the consistency of P25 (mostly) and the ability for inter-connectivity, limited/controlled roaming like this could potentially be a big thing going forward. When the discussion of ISSI was very active a few years back, there was quite a bit of mention of FiRST users being able to seamlessly roam onto the Carroll County system if/when needed, etc (if/when in-building coverage was required, dead spots, etc.).

 

[emtLarmy15]

He problem so far with issi seems to be cost... the big M wants a cool mil for its side of an issi

 

[troymail]

He problem so far with issi seems to be cost... the big M wants a cool mil for its side of an issi

Yeah - it's like that Delaware thing - flashing for Phase 2 -- everything has a price - even if discounted.

I was doing some ISSI research the other day and read that if two counties/systems wanted to connect, they'd need each side to buy the equipment (read: 2x). It went on to say that is 3 systems wanted to connect, they'd need 6x.... crazy. Contrast the cost here to the testimony at the St. Mary's county FiRST presentation a few weeks ago where it was said new towers would cost something like 750k - although like everything discussed in these non-technical, non-detail specific forums, one the specifics are known, the dollar amounts are typically only about specific "parts" of the total requirement - as in, the cost is likely much higher.

 

[emtLarmy15]

Yes. From what I gather in regards to issi you do need the parts on each side. From what I’ve heard quoted Harris charges about 50,000 for its side while moto is 1 mil (so two Motos that want to issi would be 2 million).

I’ve heard this is why FiRST has all but abandoned issi at this point. ( I know it exists between pg and first but I believe moto was heavily involved in that as a test/demo and it didn’t cost the county or state nearly that much)

 

[maus92]

Harris calls it multi region

In the networking biz, it's generically known as a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network) or a WWAN ( Wireless Wide Area Network.) The technologies / terminologies continue to converge...

 

[emtLarmy15]

At the end of the day p25 is nothing more than voip wireless network. BeON with an xl185 or 200 makes it easy to take advantage of existing commercial lte networks. I don’t have an xl radio but can see in rpm2 references to BeON roaming which could be an even further option in the future to reducing dead spots using WiFi and commercial LTE solutions such as Firstnet.

From what I understand there are already p25 systems in existence using only BeON and no traditional LMR sites.

 

[maus92]

Yeah - it's like that Delaware thing - flashing for Phase 2 -- everything has a price - even if discounted.

I was doing some ISSI research the other day and read that if two counties/systems wanted to connect, they'd need each side to buy the equipment (read: 2x). It went on to say that is 3 systems wanted to connect, they'd need 6x.... crazy. Contrast the cost here to the testimony at the St. Mary's county FiRST presentation a few weeks ago where it was said new towers would cost something like 750k - although like everything discussed in these non-technical, non-detail specific forums, one the specifics are known, the dollar amounts are typically only about specific "parts" of the total requirement - as in, the cost is likely much higher.

If one could find the budget for Talbot County's Bozman ASR installation....