You do realize the end is near, right? (Conventional and trunked radio)

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

It has been a while this thread has been quiet. With all being said about FIRSTNET saving our world and LMR being dead in the water.

So I run across the article on Puerto Rico and it is a reminder that the infrastructure is just one bad day away from toast.

I heard today a lone Ham radio operator has come up on the HF from PR. Probably a few more as they salvage 12 V batteries and some wire antennas. Meanwhile the modern convenience of a cellphone is history for most on the island.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-of-a-signal?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[lmrtek]

State wide systems are now becoming the norm with every agency using the same system and those who resist are eventually forced to participate or face funding cuts

The Ohio's MARCS network for example is essentially a cellular network for public safety

Despite the fact that it wasn't needed or that it costs millions a year to maintain, the state simply steals more 911 fees in order to fund it

And the West Virginia system AGAIN is s massive network of towers that puts every agency on one network at a cost of millions a year to the taxpayers

 

[w8prr]

First Net, the federal build out of a system for public safety has finally admitted that they will never be able to replace LMR. Yes, a lot of stuff will go to digital networks, heck, its already happened, most LE cars in our area have laptops with air cards, but two way radio, in one form or another will be with us for a long time. State of Ohio has turned on a new P25 system in the last year that replaces the P25 system they put in in the 90's. It will be here, although encryption and such will make it less friendly to scanner users, it will be around for another 20 yrs or so, but 6.25 NB will become an issue.

 

[kayn1n32008]

State wide systems are now becoming the norm with every agency using the same system and those who resist are eventually forced to participate or face funding cuts



The Ohio's MARCS network for example is essentially a cellular network for public safety



Despite the fact that it wasn't needed or that it costs millions a year to maintain, the state simply steals more 911 fees in order to fund it



And the West Virginia system AGAIN is s massive network of towers that puts every agency on one network at a cost of millions a year to the taxpayers

Both those systems are TINY. SIRN, according to the DB is not even 100s sites, and Ohio is rather small as well.

Just sayin... A large system in the US is like Michigan state wide system.

 

[kayn1n32008]

State wide systems are now becoming the norm with every agency using the same system and those who resist are eventually forced to participate or face funding cuts



The Ohio's MARCS network for example is essentially a cellular network for public safety



Despite the fact that it wasn't needed or that it costs millions a year to maintain, the state simply steals more 911 fees in order to fund it



And the West Virginia system AGAIN is s massive network of towers that puts every agency on one network at a cost of millions a year to the taxpayers

One big advantage to having state/province wide systems is freeing up spectrum.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jonwienke]

There's also a cost savings when you consider that the costs of the system are split up among hundreds of agencies. Total spending would be higher if each agency had to license its own frequencies and maintain their own repeaters and towers. By sharing infrastructure among multiple users, fewer repeaters, towers, and frequencies are needed.

 

[kayn1n32008]

And the West Virginia system AGAIN is s massive network of towers that puts every agency on one network at a cost of millions a year to the taxpayers

Tiny.

Alberta built out a 700MHz/140MHz Phase one Harris system that has "A total of 423 sites are linked across 661,190 square kilometres to provide the necessary coverage across the entire province of Alberta."

Source: http://williamsengineering.com/mcm_...alberta-first-responders-radio-communication/

423 sites to provide 95/95 primary and secondary highway mobile coverage with +/-90 urban centers having 95/95 portable, on street coverage.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wa8pyr]

I have to correct these erroneous statements. . .

State wide systems are now becoming the norm with every agency using the same system and those who resist are eventually forced to participate or face funding cuts

The Ohio's MARCS network for example is essentially a cellular network for public safety

Despite the fact that it wasn't needed or that it costs millions a year to maintain, the state simply steals more 911 fees in order to fund it.

1. Not sure specifically about where you live, but most agencies don't get funding for their radio systems; they've always been maintained out of their own budget. The primary reasons for wide-area systems are interoperability, better use of a limited resource (frequencies), and economy of scale (maintenance costs are spread out over a larger number of users).

2. MARCS is not a cellular network. It's a multi-site land mobile voice radio system that really has very little resemblance to a cellular telephone system. The only real resemblance is that there are multiple sites and the radio picks the one it likes best at that moment.

3. MARCS is not funded by 911 fees; each user agency pays subscriber fees from their own budget. 911 fees in Ohio go specifically to each County to fund the 911 center(s) which answer wireless calls.

We could debate the "not needed" comment until the cows come home, but from my perspective as a public safety communications professional it was needed, if for no other reason than to make interoperability a heck of a lot better than it was with thousands of agencies on thousands of systems and three or four different frequency bands.

Both those systems are TINY. SIRN, according to the DB is not even 100s sites, and Ohio is rather small as well.

Just sayin... A large system in the US is like Michigan state wide system.

Not sure what criteria you're using to come up with "tiny," but Ohio MARCS is not tiny; there are 207 sites and more being added as coverage holes are noted and corrected. The one you've stated as being "large" (Michigan) has 197 sites, so if number of sites is your criteria, you've got it backwards.

 

[kayn1n32008]

I have to correct these erroneous statements. . .



Not sure what criteria you're using to come up with "tiny," but Ohio MARCS is not tiny; there are 207 sites and more being added as coverage holes are noted and corrected. The one you've stated as being "large" (Michigan) has 197 sites, so if number of sites is your criteria, you've got it backwards.

Fair enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kayn1n32008]

.

Not sure what criteria you're using to come up with "tiny," but Ohio MARCS is not tiny;

Site count + coverage area.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wa8pyr]

Site count + coverage area.

I'll concede that Michigan is larger by area, but it's also considerably more flat than Ohio. Once you get south and east of Interstate 71 in Ohio, it turns into the western Piedmont of the Appalachian Mountains and is a much bigger headache to get radio coverage. We've got all kinds of fascinating little valleys and hollows in SE Ohio where radio waves do all sorts of weird things.

Ohio still wins.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Ohio still wins.

But still tiny. But it is a very well engineered, and well built system with some very smart people running it. Any idea what the coverage expectation is? (95/95 mobile, 95/95 portable)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wa8pyr]

But still tiny

OK, whatever. I'm guessing you're from Michigan. . .

 

[kayn1n32008]

OK, whatever. I'm guessing you're from Michigan. . .

Nope. Great white north. You could put 4 Ohio's in the province I live in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[phask]

As Tom said - not in Ohio. Sure you aren't talking about PA's boondoggle of a system?

State wide systems are now becoming the norm with every agency using the same system and those who resist are eventually forced to participate or face funding cuts

The Ohio's MARCS network for example is essentially a cellular network for public safety

Despite the fact that it wasn't needed or that it costs millions a year to maintain, the state simply steals more 911 fees in order to fund it

And the West Virginia system AGAIN is s massive network of towers that puts every agency on one network at a cost of millions a year to the taxpayers

 

[wa8pyr]

But still tiny. But it is a very well engineered, and well built system with some very smart people running it. Any idea what the coverage expectation is? (95/95 mobile, 95/95 portable)

I'd have to dig out the documents, but if I recall correctly it was somewhere around 97% mobile on-street, and well exceeded that requirement, even to the point of somewhere around 96-97% portable on-street as well, and good portable indoor coverage without even trying.

The system wasn't actually designed to have super-duper indoor coverage, as it was originally intended for state agencies who do most of their activity outdoors; the only exception was Columbus (state capital) where they put in a multi-site simulcast.

It's since expanded to host local agencies with greater indoor coverage needs, which is where most of the additional towers are coming from. Apart from partner metro areas which installed their own simulcast sites (usually replacing existing analog simulcast systems), a lot of local agencies especially in rural areas use vehicle repeaters to fill in the holes for indoor coverage if needed.

 

[iMONITOR]

QUOTE=ElroyJetson;2812153]Just to point it out, do you realize that we are approaching the sunset of two way radio as we know it?

The future is data fusion, IP connectivity, wifi, LTE, and in general, business and public safety communications will become more and more an app running on a customized smartphone-based device and less and less a conventional or trunked two way radio.

IP-based, wifi two way radios with PTT functionality have been available for a couple of years now. [/QUOTE]

Cell providers are not known to be reliable in times of emergencies. I think IP based communications may have it's purpose, but as a secondary system, similar to MDT's.

 

[RFFR]

There is little incentive for the cell companies to improve coverage. They are making a ton of money . It is doubtful I will switch carriers, because only one works in my house.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Serious question -- is it lack of incentive or lack of spectrum? Would the cellular companies need more spectrum, or more efficiency on the spectrum, or do they just need to build more towers?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

It is a lack of incentive. The cellular companies have plenty of spectrum. Spectrum is being "warehoused" by the cellular companies. They won't admit it because such hoarding is contrary to public interests (and FCC Charter).

 

[mmckenna]

Serious question -- is it lack of incentive or lack of spectrum? Would the cellular companies need more spectrum, or more efficiency on the spectrum, or do they just need to build more towers?

The more spectrum the carriers buy up, the less competition.
A chunk of the 600MHz spectrum has been auctioned as TV stations are willing to repack. Carriers that don't buy into it can risk losing out to others, so it can get pretty heated.

Also, if that spectrum was simply given to LMR/Part 90 Usage, prices might drop and more companies -might- use LMR again, rather than buying service from the cellular carriers.

Cellular carriers have plenty of spectrum to do what they want. The push now is for more bandwidth so customers can enjoy faster internet access.
Cellular carriers won't build out coverage unless there is enough customers to make it profitable. They are not really in the market of providing phone service, although that's what they want you to think. They are in the market of providing enough "acceptable" service to paying customers so that money can be passed on to share holders.
Since building new cellular sites is expensive, they don't want to invest in more unless forced to.