- Status
Marietta
Tower in Marietta??.. Where in the world did you read that?
ALL York sites are up and running as designed.. A weak signal is not a DEAD signal.. As it stands, 33 MHz coverage is spotty in BOTH areas on Mobiles, We have 2 "weak" areas on PORTABLES..in FULL foliage.. It only gets better in the fall and winter.. Thus helping the coverage in the Roundtop area..
Tower in Marietta??.. Where in the world did you read that?
ALL York sites are up and running as designed.. A weak signal is not a DEAD signal.. As it stands, 33 MHz coverage is spotty in BOTH areas on Mobiles, We have 2 "weak" areas on PORTABLES..in FULL foliage.. It only gets better in the fall and winter.. Thus helping the coverage in the Roundtop area..
Anyone that is in the radio project, can you post the updated talkgroups on the database? I know more ops TG'S and fire police TG's were added to the radios.
Zoned order
WRONG AGAIN...
They are still named exactly as originally layed out.. MAIN OPS 1 OPS 2 ETC..
.........................................................................................................................................................
WRONG AGAIN...
They are still named exactly as originally layed out.. MAIN OPS 1 OPS 2 ETC..
.........................................................................................................................................................
I've been searching on this site for information on which scanners will work with the York County system and this is the first I've actually seen scanners listed. Just to double-check on this...Will the above scanners can be programed to scan all the new zones sequencially, just like I did with my old scanner (scanning zone 1, then 2 etc. Are there any other scanners that will work? I read on another forum that someone was using a RS Pro-106 (I think that is the model). Will that scanner work correctly too? Since they are changing systems I need to upgrade my scanner to continue to keep up with what is going on. Out of the scanners that will work with the new York system, does one of them stand out over the rest. I'm looking for a portable scanner.
As soon as the system is up and running well our agency will be getting the new MA/COM radios too. We've been talking to sosome neighboring Police Departments that we work closely with, and I've been hearing some complaints from them about the system. I was a bit surprised to here on here what seem to be generally good to very good comments about the system. Anyway, until we have our new radios at work I want to use a personal scanner to keep advised of what is going on locally in the city during the midnight shift, especially with all of the gunshots that have going off recently.
Thanks for any help that can be provided on scanners!
- Greg
fkiehner
Member
Updated TG list here?
I have now looked at the portables that are here in Brogue Amb station and there are more than 6 Fire Police Talk groups. However there are only 6 listed on this site. Anyone know the additional ID's for the balance of the Fire Police Groups that can be either added to the list or added to my ARC96 software file?
Thanks,
Frank K
Brogue Amb 39
Red Lion Amb 37
I have now looked at the portables that are here in Brogue Amb station and there are more than 6 Fire Police Talk groups. However there are only 6 listed on this site. Anyone know the additional ID's for the balance of the Fire Police Groups that can be either added to the list or added to my ARC96 software file?
Thanks,
Frank K
Brogue Amb 39
Red Lion Amb 37
I think I explained myself poorly. Talk groups have been grouped into banks based on their purpose as opposed to simply scrolling through nearly 100 talk groups in a row. This makes for easier navigation and locating of the talk group you are looking for.
Also, the database now seems to be inaccurate as the newest York County Emergency Services training material notes 15 "fire ops" talk groups, no "EMS Main" talk group, 15 "fire police" talk groups, and a few other minor contrasts. Maybe Dave can send the updated list to the RRDB if he gets a few free moments.
Also, fire and EMS units were to transition to the P25 system at midnight 11/21, but rumor has it that transition has been postponed again.
Yep, it is pushed back at least one more week.
Updates 396 firmware
I am listening to the system with my BC396 after having upgraded the firmware to v3. It sounds like CRAP now. I had been listening with I think v2.11 or something, and it sounded great then. Does anyone else have the same issue? I'm thinking of reverting to the previous firmware version, but the upgrade did help with some of my other systems I usually scan, so I'm torn.
edit: I should be more specific. When I say "sounds like crap" I am referring to the P25 decoding.
I am listening to the system with my BC396 after having upgraded the firmware to v3. It sounds like CRAP now. I had been listening with I think v2.11 or something, and it sounded great then. Does anyone else have the same issue? I'm thinking of reverting to the previous firmware version, but the upgrade did help with some of my other systems I usually scan, so I'm torn.
edit: I should be more specific. When I say "sounds like crap" I am referring to the P25 decoding.
Intermittently Receiving York's P-25 system
Okay, below please find the information of the problem that I am having with my GRE PRS-500. Since this is the system that I am having problems with I thought this would be the place to ask...
As far as I can tell the scanner works fine on conventional frequencies, but it only intermittently works on the York County, PA P-25 system. I live less than 5 miles (as the crow flies) from the York City square, so I am not too far away for good reception. Most recently, the scanner seemed to working fine for a day or two (after a number of days of intermittent operation), but after I added some additional conventional frequencies to other scan lists it didn’t work on the P-25 system at all. While I’m not absolutely certain, I don’t believe I had made any changes to the original trunkgroup or talkgroups since it was originally uploaded to the scanner and working properly from the (at that time) most recent upload.
Please excuse the included detail, but I didn’t want to have a number of replys asking if I did “this” or “that”. Below is what I have done and my findings.
To make solving this problem simpler I started a “New” file so that the Bu-tel software would be at factory default settings, and after uploading the new file into the PSR-500 I am assuming that all the scanner settings would be at “factory” values too. I didn't want any previous changes I may have made to effect the new test.
I don’t know if this matters, but the computer I’m using is a Windows Vista v6.0 with service pack 1.
1. First, I imported “York County Public Safety – Project 25” and the 42 “law enforcement” talk-groups by using the RR Trunk feature found in Bu-tel Software BV – 1.11 build 1 – Full Version.
2. After importing the trunk system and talk groups I found the following results in the GRE Object Editor;
a. Trunk System (TSYS); System Type – MOT VHF/UHF; Alpha Tag – York County Publ; Frequencies (double click) 500.312500, 502.362500, 501.062500, 501.187500, 500.637500; Digital AGC - On; SuperTrack – On; Multisite – Roam; Threshold High – 95; Threshold Low – 75; T-Tables – Custom; Edit TTables – (double-click) Low channel – 0; High Channel – 759; Offset – 0; Base – 500.000000; Step – 12.5; Fleetmap – Type 2; Check all CC – No.
b. Talkgroup ID (TGID); Talkgroup ID – 12100; Alpha Tag - Police 1 City; Scan List - -1; Trunk System - York County Publ; TType – Group; LED – Solid; Delay – On; Delay time – 20; Object ID – 0. All other Talkgroups appear to be have the same settings.
3. I next Uploaded this programming into my PSR-500 scanner. It completed the upload, the scanner completed a restart and I then pressed SCAN to begin scanning. While the scanner was scanning I was listening to the audio of http://www.ycdesonline.com/P25Police.htm. The audio feed of the website indicated a lot of activity but the scanner did not stop on any talkgroups and I had the volume turned fully clockwise. I monitored the audio feed for about 10 minutes with the scanner not stopping on any talkgroups. The scanner indicated that it was scanning the the lowest line on the LCD displayed “York County Publ”.
4. Suspecting that the TSYS type (MOT VHF/UHF) is wrong I changed the scanner’s settings PGM>EDIT>TSYS>EDIT > from the above setting to “Type: P25 Auto”. I saved the setting and pressed scan again. The scanner scanned as previously described, but did not stop on any talkgroups. After about 10 minutes or listening to a lot of activity on the on-line audio feed of the Police Talkgroups I also tried the P25 Manual for a similar duration but that made no difference either.
So, does anyone have any ideas? I suspect that there may be some setting that is wrong since the original Trunk System download type was wrong (MOT VHF/UHF vs. P25 Auto), but I’m not sure. I have noticed that when the scanner seems to be working properly the LCD display intermittently shows a letter “T” to the left of the letter “G”, but when it is not working properly the “T” does not display. Currently, the “T” is not displayed at all.
Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. I suspect that the problem is a minor one, but I can’t figure it out.
- Greg
Okay, below please find the information of the problem that I am having with my GRE PRS-500. Since this is the system that I am having problems with I thought this would be the place to ask...
As far as I can tell the scanner works fine on conventional frequencies, but it only intermittently works on the York County, PA P-25 system. I live less than 5 miles (as the crow flies) from the York City square, so I am not too far away for good reception. Most recently, the scanner seemed to working fine for a day or two (after a number of days of intermittent operation), but after I added some additional conventional frequencies to other scan lists it didn’t work on the P-25 system at all. While I’m not absolutely certain, I don’t believe I had made any changes to the original trunkgroup or talkgroups since it was originally uploaded to the scanner and working properly from the (at that time) most recent upload.
Please excuse the included detail, but I didn’t want to have a number of replys asking if I did “this” or “that”. Below is what I have done and my findings.
To make solving this problem simpler I started a “New” file so that the Bu-tel software would be at factory default settings, and after uploading the new file into the PSR-500 I am assuming that all the scanner settings would be at “factory” values too. I didn't want any previous changes I may have made to effect the new test.
I don’t know if this matters, but the computer I’m using is a Windows Vista v6.0 with service pack 1.
1. First, I imported “York County Public Safety – Project 25” and the 42 “law enforcement” talk-groups by using the RR Trunk feature found in Bu-tel Software BV – 1.11 build 1 – Full Version.
2. After importing the trunk system and talk groups I found the following results in the GRE Object Editor;
a. Trunk System (TSYS); System Type – MOT VHF/UHF; Alpha Tag – York County Publ; Frequencies (double click) 500.312500, 502.362500, 501.062500, 501.187500, 500.637500; Digital AGC - On; SuperTrack – On; Multisite – Roam; Threshold High – 95; Threshold Low – 75; T-Tables – Custom; Edit TTables – (double-click) Low channel – 0; High Channel – 759; Offset – 0; Base – 500.000000; Step – 12.5; Fleetmap – Type 2; Check all CC – No.
b. Talkgroup ID (TGID); Talkgroup ID – 12100; Alpha Tag - Police 1 City; Scan List - -1; Trunk System - York County Publ; TType – Group; LED – Solid; Delay – On; Delay time – 20; Object ID – 0. All other Talkgroups appear to be have the same settings.
3. I next Uploaded this programming into my PSR-500 scanner. It completed the upload, the scanner completed a restart and I then pressed SCAN to begin scanning. While the scanner was scanning I was listening to the audio of http://www.ycdesonline.com/P25Police.htm. The audio feed of the website indicated a lot of activity but the scanner did not stop on any talkgroups and I had the volume turned fully clockwise. I monitored the audio feed for about 10 minutes with the scanner not stopping on any talkgroups. The scanner indicated that it was scanning the the lowest line on the LCD displayed “York County Publ”.
4. Suspecting that the TSYS type (MOT VHF/UHF) is wrong I changed the scanner’s settings PGM>EDIT>TSYS>EDIT > from the above setting to “Type: P25 Auto”. I saved the setting and pressed scan again. The scanner scanned as previously described, but did not stop on any talkgroups. After about 10 minutes or listening to a lot of activity on the on-line audio feed of the Police Talkgroups I also tried the P25 Manual for a similar duration but that made no difference either.
So, does anyone have any ideas? I suspect that there may be some setting that is wrong since the original Trunk System download type was wrong (MOT VHF/UHF vs. P25 Auto), but I’m not sure. I have noticed that when the scanner seems to be working properly the LCD display intermittently shows a letter “T” to the left of the letter “G”, but when it is not working properly the “T” does not display. Currently, the “T” is not displayed at all.
Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. I suspect that the problem is a minor one, but I can’t figure it out.
- Greg
fkiehner
Member
Hi Greg.
Not totally familiar with the 500 as I have the PRO-96 but I do use the Butel software. One thing I noticed is that you apparently only loaded 5 freqs from this website into your scanner. For some reason not all the freqs download from RR to the Butel SW.
What I had to do was to manually enter all the freqs from each system (central, south, north, west, fulton) into the software in the freqs list and then upload that info to the scanner.
I first put all the freqs in one bank then changed it to one bank per system ie., bank 1 is central system, bank 2 is south, etc.
The talkgroups from RR are ok to use, as of now. I notice that the 12 Fire Police talkgroups are not listed here and I am unable to provide the TGID for the additional channels. Havent figured out how to determine what they are at this time.
Once all the freqs for the system you want to listen to (most likely Central where you are located) are in the scanner bank you should be good to go.
Let me know.
Frank K
East Prospect
Not totally familiar with the 500 as I have the PRO-96 but I do use the Butel software. One thing I noticed is that you apparently only loaded 5 freqs from this website into your scanner. For some reason not all the freqs download from RR to the Butel SW.
What I had to do was to manually enter all the freqs from each system (central, south, north, west, fulton) into the software in the freqs list and then upload that info to the scanner.
I first put all the freqs in one bank then changed it to one bank per system ie., bank 1 is central system, bank 2 is south, etc.
The talkgroups from RR are ok to use, as of now. I notice that the 12 Fire Police talkgroups are not listed here and I am unable to provide the TGID for the additional channels. Havent figured out how to determine what they are at this time.
Once all the freqs for the system you want to listen to (most likely Central where you are located) are in the scanner bank you should be good to go.
Let me know.
Frank K
East Prospect
P-25 system now working - added non-control frequencies
Thanks Frank for your suggestions...
I added as many of the frequencies as I could manually and as soon as I uploaded them to my PSR-500 it immediately came to life with York County's P-25 traffic. It's been running for quite a few hours, and seems to be working fine. I had wondered if the five listed control channels were all that I needed for a while now, but I wasn't sure. It is my understanding that on a P-25 system all the controlling is performed by the control channels, and that includes identifying the frequency on which the audio is being directed. I also thought that with that being the case, the P-25 systems the control channels were the only one's that needed to be added, and the scanner would "decode" the assigned vioce frequency and follow it accordingly.
So, either I misunderstood how the P-25 system works, or, there are additional control channels, perhaps alternative control channels, that are not listed here in the RR site. I suspect that there are alternative control channels being used. Perhaps someone with intimate knowledge of this system can be of assistance. Either way this seems to be a problem for anyone using RR downloads to program their scanner, since only five (5) control channels will be added.
If there are additional control channels that need added that would be great, since only a few more frequencies would have to be added, and not all of them. Adding all of them could present a problem to some. I believe that the PRS-500 can only have 32 control frequencies, and the P-25 system has quite a few more than that. If I need to add all of them to have complete coverage while I'm driving in and around York County I'll have to try to figure out a work-around to list all the frequencies used by the York County P-25 system.
Anyway, so far my scanner is now working well after adding many non-control frequencies. Hopefully someone can provide some additional information on the P-25 system to let us know if there are additional control frequencies, or if for some reason all the P-25 frequencies need to be added for scanners to work. I'll have to do some checking on this too, and will post any significant findings.
Thanks again Frank, for your time and assistance!
- Greg
Thanks Frank for your suggestions...
I added as many of the frequencies as I could manually and as soon as I uploaded them to my PSR-500 it immediately came to life with York County's P-25 traffic. It's been running for quite a few hours, and seems to be working fine. I had wondered if the five listed control channels were all that I needed for a while now, but I wasn't sure. It is my understanding that on a P-25 system all the controlling is performed by the control channels, and that includes identifying the frequency on which the audio is being directed. I also thought that with that being the case, the P-25 systems the control channels were the only one's that needed to be added, and the scanner would "decode" the assigned vioce frequency and follow it accordingly.
So, either I misunderstood how the P-25 system works, or, there are additional control channels, perhaps alternative control channels, that are not listed here in the RR site. I suspect that there are alternative control channels being used. Perhaps someone with intimate knowledge of this system can be of assistance. Either way this seems to be a problem for anyone using RR downloads to program their scanner, since only five (5) control channels will be added.
If there are additional control channels that need added that would be great, since only a few more frequencies would have to be added, and not all of them. Adding all of them could present a problem to some. I believe that the PRS-500 can only have 32 control frequencies, and the P-25 system has quite a few more than that. If I need to add all of them to have complete coverage while I'm driving in and around York County I'll have to try to figure out a work-around to list all the frequencies used by the York County P-25 system.
Anyway, so far my scanner is now working well after adding many non-control frequencies. Hopefully someone can provide some additional information on the P-25 system to let us know if there are additional control frequencies, or if for some reason all the P-25 frequencies need to be added for scanners to work. I'll have to do some checking on this too, and will post any significant findings.
Thanks again Frank, for your time and assistance!
- Greg
This was emailed out today.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I received an email from Steven Henry, the EMS Captain from Newberry Township asking if I had any update on the cut-over to the new radio system for the fire and EMS services, which reminded me that you have all been sitting out patiently waiting on this to happen so I thought it only fitting that I share the below update with all of you so that you know exactly what has been happening. Here is the response that I sent Steve a little earlier today:
We are HOPING for the week of 12/15 but are still on hold. Here are the three (3) key issues we are still working on that is preventing me from authorizing a move forward:
ProRoam issue - This allows the radios to automatically seek out the transmission site that provides the BEST TX and RX signal. Although we believe we have fixed this with a software upgrade, it is being tested by a few police departments that have had the latest software code installed and we are collecting feedback data. Once we are convinced this is fixed we have to load this new software code in every portable and mobile radio county-wide. M/A-COM is fully aware of this and is taking the responsibility to providing the necessary resources to get this done quickly. In addition, we have taken this opportunity to incorporate several functional changes to the radio based on end-user input, to make them a little more user-friendly.
We are experiencing what we believe to be a timing issue as well that is causing what we are calling a ‘boop sync’ issue at the end user level. The problem here is it is very sporadic and infrequent so it was hard to nail down. Here again, M/A-COM has put some of their very best technicians on it, both here on site and in Lynchburg, VA and they think they have isolated the cause. This one appears to be at the transmission site level and not with the terminal equipment. (thank God); however, the fix and timeframe associated with it is still tbd.
We are experiencing a problem with a very high percentage of the single unit and multi-unit chargers that is preventing the proper charging of portable radio batteries. This one is still being worked on, although we do have some possible alternatives, but none of them are going to be easy and here again, we are going to have to do something county-wide to correct this one. This is especially critical to the fire services since we are asking you all to come on board the system with many of you having to rely on your portable radios as your primary source to access the new radio system until we can get your new mobiles installed.
Bottom line here: We are not rushing into this process just to get it done. We are continuing to move forward cautiously and always with the best interest of all of our public safety end users in mind. Over the past few weeks we have made significant enrodes in stabilizing our system and continue to do so. We certainly owe a level of gratitude and thanks to those in the law enforcement community in the county for working with us in identifying areas in the radio system that need attention and making the needed improvements and corrections as they are identified. Their feedback and active participation in the overall roll out process has been extremely helpful to us. We are all very confident that at the end of the day we are going to have a great system.
Eric A. Bistline
Executive Director
Ladies and Gentlemen: I received an email from Steven Henry, the EMS Captain from Newberry Township asking if I had any update on the cut-over to the new radio system for the fire and EMS services, which reminded me that you have all been sitting out patiently waiting on this to happen so I thought it only fitting that I share the below update with all of you so that you know exactly what has been happening. Here is the response that I sent Steve a little earlier today:
We are HOPING for the week of 12/15 but are still on hold. Here are the three (3) key issues we are still working on that is preventing me from authorizing a move forward:
ProRoam issue - This allows the radios to automatically seek out the transmission site that provides the BEST TX and RX signal. Although we believe we have fixed this with a software upgrade, it is being tested by a few police departments that have had the latest software code installed and we are collecting feedback data. Once we are convinced this is fixed we have to load this new software code in every portable and mobile radio county-wide. M/A-COM is fully aware of this and is taking the responsibility to providing the necessary resources to get this done quickly. In addition, we have taken this opportunity to incorporate several functional changes to the radio based on end-user input, to make them a little more user-friendly.
We are experiencing what we believe to be a timing issue as well that is causing what we are calling a ‘boop sync’ issue at the end user level. The problem here is it is very sporadic and infrequent so it was hard to nail down. Here again, M/A-COM has put some of their very best technicians on it, both here on site and in Lynchburg, VA and they think they have isolated the cause. This one appears to be at the transmission site level and not with the terminal equipment. (thank God); however, the fix and timeframe associated with it is still tbd.
We are experiencing a problem with a very high percentage of the single unit and multi-unit chargers that is preventing the proper charging of portable radio batteries. This one is still being worked on, although we do have some possible alternatives, but none of them are going to be easy and here again, we are going to have to do something county-wide to correct this one. This is especially critical to the fire services since we are asking you all to come on board the system with many of you having to rely on your portable radios as your primary source to access the new radio system until we can get your new mobiles installed.
Bottom line here: We are not rushing into this process just to get it done. We are continuing to move forward cautiously and always with the best interest of all of our public safety end users in mind. Over the past few weeks we have made significant enrodes in stabilizing our system and continue to do so. We certainly owe a level of gratitude and thanks to those in the law enforcement community in the county for working with us in identifying areas in the radio system that need attention and making the needed improvements and corrections as they are identified. Their feedback and active participation in the overall roll out process has been extremely helpful to us. We are all very confident that at the end of the day we are going to have a great system.
Eric A. Bistline
Executive Director
This was sent out today to all fire and ems.
This was sent out today to all fire and ems.
Ladies and Gentlemen: As many of you know from prior emails and information presented to your respective organizations monthly meetings, we were positioning ourselves to move forward with cutting over the county fire and EMS agencies onto the new radio system sometime during the week of December 15th. In a general broadcast email that I sent out on December 3rd I addressed some issues that we have identified that are both hardware and software related that had the potential of having us to perhaps delay this cut over. I am happy to report that we have made substantial progress on some of the issues relating to the system thanks to direct feedback that we have been receiving from our law enforcement community throughout the county; however, we are still dealing with some issues that while we have now identified the causes of some of these problems, we have not yet either had software modifications developed or that was developed and installed but not yet fully tested to our satisfaction. In addition to these ‘system’ issues, we know we also have a clearly identified problem relating to the single and multi-unit battery chargers as well as battery life issues as well. Because of the problems with the charging units, we are not able to clearly determine if the short battery life issues are a result of the batteries themselves or because of faulty chargers or a combination of the two.
Because of these yet pending issues that we are still working hard to resolve and are, in fact, making progress on every day, we feel that as we continue to act in the best interest of the public safety end users, that we simply cannot in good conscious hold to this cut over schedule for the week of December 15th as we had hoped for. Obviously it is everyone’s goal to get the users on this new system because we have clearly demonstrated both in the initial field testing as well as feed back from officers in the field throughout the county that they are getting radio coverage in areas of the county that heretofore they never had coverage in before. We do not; however, want to rush into this when we clearly know that these issues exist and that we are working toward solutions that are in the not too distant future.
With this delayed cut over this is good news however. Before we are in a position to move forward, we will have both loaded new more current software in every portable, mobile and control station radio in the county that addresses these software related issues as well as having greatly improved on the user programming templates for the radios that will be more ‘user friendly’ and improve day-to-day radio communications for fire and EMS service operations. We will also be adding the local municipal talkgroup profile that I have always committed to but was slated for programming at a later date.
I do NOT have a new cut over date at this time; however, as soon as we have all of our concerns addressed to our satisfaction and to a point whereby we do not feel that your operations and/or perhaps personal safety could be compromised I will get that information to you. We are continuing to move forward with the mobile radio installation so that this delayed cut over will not affect that schedule. If anything, this will shorten the time between actual cut over and when you have your mobile radio equipment installed.
As always, thank you for your attention and patients as we strive to get into a position that we can roll this system out to all of you.
Eric A. Bistline
Executive Director
This was sent out today to all fire and ems.
Ladies and Gentlemen: As many of you know from prior emails and information presented to your respective organizations monthly meetings, we were positioning ourselves to move forward with cutting over the county fire and EMS agencies onto the new radio system sometime during the week of December 15th. In a general broadcast email that I sent out on December 3rd I addressed some issues that we have identified that are both hardware and software related that had the potential of having us to perhaps delay this cut over. I am happy to report that we have made substantial progress on some of the issues relating to the system thanks to direct feedback that we have been receiving from our law enforcement community throughout the county; however, we are still dealing with some issues that while we have now identified the causes of some of these problems, we have not yet either had software modifications developed or that was developed and installed but not yet fully tested to our satisfaction. In addition to these ‘system’ issues, we know we also have a clearly identified problem relating to the single and multi-unit battery chargers as well as battery life issues as well. Because of the problems with the charging units, we are not able to clearly determine if the short battery life issues are a result of the batteries themselves or because of faulty chargers or a combination of the two.
Because of these yet pending issues that we are still working hard to resolve and are, in fact, making progress on every day, we feel that as we continue to act in the best interest of the public safety end users, that we simply cannot in good conscious hold to this cut over schedule for the week of December 15th as we had hoped for. Obviously it is everyone’s goal to get the users on this new system because we have clearly demonstrated both in the initial field testing as well as feed back from officers in the field throughout the county that they are getting radio coverage in areas of the county that heretofore they never had coverage in before. We do not; however, want to rush into this when we clearly know that these issues exist and that we are working toward solutions that are in the not too distant future.
With this delayed cut over this is good news however. Before we are in a position to move forward, we will have both loaded new more current software in every portable, mobile and control station radio in the county that addresses these software related issues as well as having greatly improved on the user programming templates for the radios that will be more ‘user friendly’ and improve day-to-day radio communications for fire and EMS service operations. We will also be adding the local municipal talkgroup profile that I have always committed to but was slated for programming at a later date.
I do NOT have a new cut over date at this time; however, as soon as we have all of our concerns addressed to our satisfaction and to a point whereby we do not feel that your operations and/or perhaps personal safety could be compromised I will get that information to you. We are continuing to move forward with the mobile radio installation so that this delayed cut over will not affect that schedule. If anything, this will shorten the time between actual cut over and when you have your mobile radio equipment installed.
As always, thank you for your attention and patients as we strive to get into a position that we can roll this system out to all of you.
Eric A. Bistline
Executive Director
Cskib32087
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 257
Cskib32087
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 257
Nice advertisement for Tyco. And good explanation of the excuse they are using.
I thought this was going to be something different from them.
But im weak...LMFAO
I thought this was going to be something different from them.
But im weak...LMFAO
I'm not sure what you mean by that. No excuses. The system was well-planned and engineered. There is no need for a full simulcast. There is no need for there to be 20+ channels at every site. It would be a poor use of assigned frequencies and unnecessary cost of having such a high number of base stations at each tower. This is not to mention that simulcast timing for such a large area would be close to impossible.
Coincidentally, I am a Motorola fan myself. Motorola builds systems using the same exact concepts (zones, multiple simulcast sub-systems, etc) for the same exact reasons (frequency constraints, money, area too large to accommodate ideal simulcasting).
I'm still not seeing what the ultimate benefit of a full system simulcast would be, other than ease of use by scanner listeners.
- Status
Similar threads
