WSP and DoJ IWN: Same System

[Jay911]

Hi folks,

Before you cut me down as a tourist coming in and having no idea what he's talking about, please look at this.

For reference: Washington State Patrol Trunking System, Various, Washington - Scanner Frequencies and U.S. Dept. of Justice: Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) Trunking System, Various, Multi-State - Scanner Frequencies

Both have the same WACN and SID.

From my Unitrunker setup, reading from an R820T dongle:

Site 001-064 ValleyCom of DoJ IWN, neighbor sites (note the last two):

Site 002-001 Bellevue of WSP, neighbor sites (note the first eight):

And for what it's worth, the bandplan for Site 002-001 Bellevue.

First things first - both 001-064 and 002-001 show sites in the other RFSS as neighbors. The systems are connected, if not one and the same.

Also, the RFSS 002 sites (the "WSP system") are capable of Phase 2, but are not using it, so the system should not be identified as such in the RRDB. (The only bandplan in the system with phase 2 info is plan 15, and the actual sites uses plan 1, as indicated by the LCN #s in the first two images.)

I haven't submitted this to the DB yet. Please let me know if there's a compelling reason why I shouldn't do so.

 

[ChrisP]

The systems are connected, if not one and the same.

FWIW, both the VHF and 700/800 MHz sites are all utilizing the same system core from the IWN.

As for the interconnectivity between the IWN VHF sites and the 700/800 MHz sites as far as what talk groups will cross over, remains to be seen.

- Chris

 

[Jay911]

Ok, I'm going to leave my computer monitoring 001-006 and 002-001 for a while and see what turns up.

 

[kd7kdc]

As for RR policy, admins are supposed to list the system at its highest known capability even if they are not using it as such.
The reason I split the two is because the 700 side is licensed to Washington state whereas the vhf side is licensed to the federal government.

Like Chris said... It's just a core connecting the two systems.

 

[Jay911]

As for RR policy, admins are supposed to list the system at its highest known capability even if they are not using it as such.

This introduces a problem, then. Software programmers are filtering out the available systems in their packages based on Phase 2 being declared in the RRDB. Not just Uniden's Sentinel software, but other packages as well IIRC.

Whoever in the administration of RR is responsible for liaising with software developers (hopefully there is someone!) needs to get in touch with them and figure out a solution.

Back when I was a DB admin, the goal was to make the database as accurate as possible. IMO, calling a slew of systems Phase 2 just because they are capable of it, but not using it, isn't accurate. What of all the entities who are using digital-capable repeaters in analog mode (one fire department near my home is doing that)? Or all the systems that are "capable" of encryption but don't have it activated? To follow the RR policy's line of thinking, everything on a system "capable" of encryption should be listed as encrypted.

 

[mikewazowski]

This introduces a problem, then. Software programmers are filtering out the available systems in their packages based on Phase 2 being declared in the RRDB. Not just Uniden's Sentinel software, but other packages as well IIRC.

I assume you're referring to HomePatrol Sentinel since BCDx36HP Sentinel handles Phase II systems fine?

HomePatrol Sentinel does not filter out Phase II systems. For a while it did remove any talkgroups marked as TDMA but that was changed a few weeks ago.

As for your other comments, I'll leave that to you to bring up in the Database Administration forum. I do agree with you though. Unless a system has been seen to use TDMA talkgroups, there's no point in marking it as Phase II.