Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Propriatary systems

Expand Messages
  • Jim
    The issue and same question keeps coming up about running out of range on your existing radio system. Can someone explain to me why everyone is just dead
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 30 6:24 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The issue and same question keeps coming up about running out of
      range on your existing radio system. Can someone explain to me
      why everyone is just dead locked in on using their standing
      radio system for interop?

      Many challenges stand in the way of using existing radio systems
      for interop. The largest one is if it is a trunking system,
      you have to program the system to allow all the incoming radios
      to have access to the trunking system on a per radio basis.

      The second reason not to use the existing radio system is that
      it won't take a whole bunch of extra radio traffic to bring a
      system down to it's knees. A trunking system can only handle
      the traffic until all the radio channels are filled. After
      that, you wait in line for the go ahead tone.

      The FCC hasn't done too many things in a logical manner over
      the years. One thing they did do was to set aside radio channels
      to be used for interoperability for incidents as they came up.
      These channels are not used that often around the country.
      Matter of fasct there are fewer people that know they exist
      than the number that do use them.

      These interoperability channels are set up for nation wide use.
      They can be used by mobiles and portables almost without a
      resriction. Only real resriction is that they can't be used
      for daily communications.

      Most interoperability is over short distances. This normally
      is only a block or so. Even a simplex or talk-around use of
      these channels will work just fine. You don't have to put up
      repeaters. If you have the funds and can afford to install
      repeaters on these frequencies, go for it.

      We as radio techs, engineers and system managers need to break
      the old shell and start to look outside the office you stay in.
      Get out in the field and see the issues in real life. Do you
      think that right after hurricane Katrina, that many radios
      systems were functional for interop use. Most of the
      communications that took place right after the storm was done
      on these interop channels. It was the only way for so many
      agencies from all over the country to talk to each other.

      Put these interop channels into all your mobiles and portables.
      Make sure you put in both the repeater and talk-around channels.
      Use them as extra channels in your incidents as they occur.
      The more you use them, the more you will say, how did we ever
      get along without them.

      Many state interop plans have implimented the use of these
      national interop channels. It's just a political thing with
      some of the department heads on using them.

      As for all the different bands in use around, sure your going
      to have these issues. There are some good gateway systems
      on the market that will tie these non compatible systems
      together. Some of them do it on an IP basis. You can take
      a gateway in one town and tie it to another gateway in the
      next town and use it to extend the radio coverage. One of
      the better units on the market that does this is the RIOS
      interop system from Sytech Corp. It uses a mesh IP network
      so you don't have to keep adding additional IP addresses for
      each IP connection. I believe that the ACU-1000 needs a
      different IP address for each connection at each end of
      multiple gateways tied together. The ACU-1000 uses a spoke
      type of networking the multiple gateways together. It also
      requires an additional DSP card for each IP connection. These
      come at a price of around $2500 if I have it correct. The
      Sytech RIOS gateway doesn't reqwuire any additional cards,
      ports or anything. It is part of the multi connection.

      Jim



      --- In PA-800MHZ@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Kelsey" <kelsey@...> wrote:
      >
      > In reading the proposal presented, there appears to be one huge flaw
      -- how
      > on earth are you going to accomplish this using the existing radio
      systems
      > all on different bands and frequencies? Sure, they (existing
      systems) can be
      > interconnected and will work just fine as long as everyone remains
      in their
      > "home" territory, but as soon as someone travels to another area,
      maybe only
      > a county away, the interoperability disappears.
      >
      > Chuck in New York
      >
    • ka1jfy
      Comments interspersed below. ... Because they don t want to give up control of/or responsibility for, their resources. Also, there s training issues with the
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Comments interspersed below.

        --- In PA-800MHZ@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <k1vty@...> wrote:
        >
        > The issue and same question keeps coming up about running out of
        > range on your existing radio system. Can someone explain to me
        > why everyone is just dead locked in on using their standing
        > radio system for interop?

        Because they don't want to give up control of/or responsibility
        for, 'their' resources.

        Also, there's training issues with the radio operators. If they use
        the system they talk on every day, then there's no need of additional
        training AND PRACTICE on the interop stuff.

        >
        > Many challenges stand in the way of using existing radio systems
        > for interop. The largest one is if it is a trunking system,
        > you have to program the system to allow all the incoming radios
        > to have access to the trunking system on a per radio basis.
        >

        Hit the nail on the head.
        No system operator in their right mind is going to allow that. Just
        think about the opportunities for pirating service and intentional
        interference if they did.

        > The second reason not to use the existing radio system is that
        > it won't take a whole bunch of extra radio traffic to bring a
        > system down to it's knees. A trunking system can only handle
        > the traffic until all the radio channels are filled. After
        > that, you wait in line for the go ahead tone.
        >

        If it doesn't completely crash!

        > The FCC hasn't done too many things in a logical manner over
        > the years. One thing they did do was to set aside radio channels
        > to be used for interoperability for incidents as they came up.

        I agree wholeheartedly. Setting aside channels for interop/mutual aid
        was one of the most enlightend things they did.


        > These channels are not used that often around the country.
        > Matter of fasct there are fewer people that know they exist
        > than the number that do use them.
        >

        That's not the FCC's fault, that's ours.

        > These interoperability channels are set up for nation wide use.
        > They can be used by mobiles and portables almost without a
        > resriction. Only real resriction is that they can't be used
        > for daily communications.
        >

        Which keeps them clear for interop uses. Put daily traffic on them
        and they're no longer available for interop use. And nobody but the
        current user will listen to them.

        > Most interoperability is over short distances. This normally
        > is only a block or so. Even a simplex or talk-around use of
        > these channels will work just fine. You don't have to put up
        > repeaters. If you have the funds and can afford to install
        > repeaters on these frequencies, go for it.
        >
        > We as radio techs, engineers and system managers need to break
        > the old shell and start to look outside the office you stay in.
        > Get out in the field and see the issues in real life. Do you
        > think that right after hurricane Katrina, that many radios
        > systems were functional for interop use.

        Actually, I-TAC5 WAS up and running after the NOLA EDACS trunker died
        because there was a 2x4 through the radiator of the emergency
        generator.


        Most of the
        > communications that took place right after the storm was done
        > on these interop channels. It was the only way for so many
        > agencies from all over the country to talk to each other.
        >

        But, with only one channel available, it got jammed up real fast.

        > Put these interop channels into all your mobiles and portables.
        > Make sure you put in both the repeater and talk-around channels.

        MAKE SURE YOU USE THE NATIONWIDE NAMES FOR THE CHANNELS!!!!!
        A major difficulty is that the radios may actually HAVE the channels
        in them, but because the naming isn't the same, the operators don't
        know that.

        http://tinyurl.com/2mqt2r
        Channel names are in a table at the end of the document

        > Use them as extra channels in your incidents as they occur.

        ONLY according to the rules of the regional planning committee(s)

        > The more you use them, the more you will say, how did we ever
        > get along without them.
        >
        > Many state interop plans have implimented the use of these
        > national interop channels.

        >SNIP>

        > As for all the different bands in use around, sure your going
        > to have these issues. There are some good gateway systems
        > on the market that will tie these non compatible systems
        > together. Some of them do it on an IP basis. You can take
        > a gateway in one town and tie it to another gateway in the
        > next town and use it to extend the radio coverage.

        You said above that coverage extension was not viable with trunked
        systems. Did you mean on the interop channels?

        Increasing 'coverage' is not something you NEED at a large incident.
        You NEED to be able to operate on the local communications
        infrastruture OR operate without any.

        One of
        > the better units on the market that does this is the RIOS
        > interop system from Sytech Corp. It uses a mesh IP network
        > so you don't have to keep adding additional IP addresses for
        > each IP connection. I believe that the ACU-1000 needs a
        > different IP address for each connection at each end of
        > multiple gateways tied together. The ACU-1000 uses a spoke
        > type of networking the multiple gateways together. It also
        > requires an additional DSP card for each IP connection. These
        > come at a price of around $2500 if I have it correct. The
        > Sytech RIOS gateway doesn't reqwuire any additional cards,
        > ports or anything. It is part of the multi connection.
        >
        > Jim

        RIOS is a newcomer to the interop arena.
        JPS was doing this stuff before almost anyone else.
        Not to say one is 'better' than the other, but they fill different
        niches. VOIP was not well known nor widespread when JPS put their
        unit on the market.

        Walter
      • kelsey@madbbs.com
        Simply programming Interop channels into your existing radios isn t going to accomplish much. If you are on low band and the other system is on high band, you
        Message 3 of 4 , May 1, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Simply programming Interop channels into your existing radios isn't going to accomplish much. If
          you are on low band and the other system is on high band, you still don't have communications.

          If someone really wanted to accomplish something, the very first step is to move everything to a
          single, contiguous band that all radios were able to cover. But that would only be a start. There
          would still need to be some common ground regarding formats.

          I don't see it ever happening, at least not in our lifetime.

          Chuck in New York



          ------- Original Message -------
          From : ka1jfy[mailto:walter.howard.jr@...]
          Sent : 5/1/2007 1:29:01 PM
          To : PA-800MHZ@yahoogroups.com
          Cc :
          Subject : RE: [PA-800MHZ] Re: Proprietary systems

          Comments interspersed below.

          --- In PA-800MHZ@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <k1vty@...> wrote:
          >
          > The issue and same question keeps coming up about running out of
          > range on your existing radio system. Can someone explain to me
          > why everyone is just dead locked in on using their standing
          > radio system for interop?

          Because they don't want to give up control of/or responsibility
          for, 'their' resources.

          Also, there's training issues with the radio operators. If they use
          the system they talk on every day, then there's no need of additional
          training AND PRACTICE on the interop stuff.

          >
          > Many challenges stand in the way of using existing radio systems
          > for interop. The largest one is if it is a trunking system,
          > you have to program the system to allow all the incoming radios
          > to have access to the trunking system on a per radio basis.
          >

          Hit the nail on the head.
          No system operator in their right mind is going to allow that. Just
          think about the opportunities for pirating service and intentional
          interference if they did.

          > The second reason not to use the existing radio system is that
          > it won't take a whole bunch of extra radio traffic to bring a
          > system down to it's knees. A trunking system can only handle
          > the traffic until all the radio channels are filled. After
          > that, you wait in line for the go ahead tone.
          >

          If it doesn't completely crash!

          > The FCC hasn't done too many things in a logical manner over
          > the years. One thing they did do was to set aside radio channels
          > to be used for interoperability for incidents as they came up.

          I agree wholeheartedly. Setting aside channels for interop/mutual aid
          was one of the most enlightened things they did.


          > These channels are not used that often around the country.
          > Matter of fact there are fewer people that know they exist
          > than the number that do use them.
          >

          That's not the FCC's fault, that's ours.

          > These interoperability channels are set up for nation wide use.
          > They can be used by mobiles and portables almost without a
          > restriction. Only real restriction is that they can't be used
          > for daily communications.
          >

          Which keeps them clear for interop uses. Put daily traffic on them
          and they're no longer available for interop use. And nobody but the
          current user will listen to them.

          > Most interoperability is over short distances. This normally
          > is only a block or so. Even a simplex or talk-around use of
          > these channels will work just fine. You don't have to put up
          > repeaters. If you have the funds and can afford to install
          > repeaters on these frequencies, go for it.
          >
          > We as radio techs, engineers and system managers need to break
          > the old shell and start to look outside the office you stay in.
          > Get out in the field and see the issues in real life. Do you
          > think that right after hurricane Katrina, that many radios
          > systems were functional for interop use.

          Actually, I-TAC5 WAS up and running after the NOLA EDACS trunker died
          because there was a 2x4 through the radiator of the emergency
          generator.


          Most of the
          > communications that took place right after the storm was done
          > on these interop channels. It was the only way for so many
          > agencies from all over the country to talk to each other.
          >

          But, with only one channel available, it got jammed up real fast.

          > Put these interop channels into all your mobiles and portables.
          > Make sure you put in both the repeater and talk-around channels.

          MAKE SURE YOU USE THE NATIONWIDE NAMES FOR THE CHANNELS!!!!!
          A major difficulty is that the radios may actually HAVE the channels
          in them, but because the naming isn't the same, the operators don't
          know that.

          http://tinyurl.com/2mqt2r
          Channel names are in a table at the end of the document

          > Use them as extra channels in your incidents as they occur.

          ONLY according to the rules of the regional planning committee(s)

          > The more you use them, the more you will say, how did we ever
          > get along without them.
          >
          > Many state interop plans have implemented the use of these
          > national interop channels.

          >SNIP>

          > As for all the different bands in use around, sure your going
          > to have these issues. There are some good gateway systems
          > on the market that will tie these non compatible systems
          > together. Some of them do it on an IP basis. You can take
          > a gateway in one town and tie it to another gateway in the
          > next town and use it to extend the radio coverage.

          You said above that coverage extension was not viable with trunked
          systems. Did you mean on the interop channels?

          Increasing 'coverage' is not something you NEED at a large incident.
          You NEED to be able to operate on the local communications
          infrastructure OR operate without any.

          One of
          > the better units on the market that does this is the RIOS
          > interop system from Sytech Corp. It uses a mesh IP network
          > so you don't have to keep adding additional IP addresses for
          > each IP connection. I believe that the ACU-1000 needs a
          > different IP address for each connection at each end of
          > multiple gateways tied together. The ACU-1000 uses a spoke
          > type of networking the multiple gateways together. It also
          > requires an additional DSP card for each IP connection. These
          > come at a price of around $2500 if I have it correct. The
          > Sytech RIOS gateway doesn't require any additional cards,
          > ports or anything. It is part of the multi connection.
          >
          > Jim

          RIOS is a newcomer to the interop arena.
          JPS was doing this stuff before almost anyone else.
          Not to say one is 'better' than the other, but they fill different
          niches. VOIP was not well known nor widespread when JPS put their
          unit on the market.

          Walter




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.