Regional Interop. Radio Communications

[morgancity]

So if our frequency is 154.370 mhz, how is it possible to be in that 25 mhz band?

ms

[ApuFromSpfld]

Yours is a 25 kHz wide channel, centered on 154.370 MHz.

To extend the analogy from above, if you were dead center on the radio highway, your GPS would read 154.370 MHz. But, if you go 12.5 kHz (half of 25 kHz) to the left or to the right, you would still be on the highway. With the narrowbanding, you would only go 6.25 kHz to the left or right and the FCC will have space to put another highway next to yours.

[morgancity]

Ah ha! thanks

[nmfire]

The channel spacing and bandwidth in VHF-Hi (150/160 range) is a little different than UHF(450/460 range). The concept is the same, but the numbers are a little different.

[99mtk35]

We were awarded for communications in 2007. We ended up going with Icom, mostly due to price. I was caught in the trap of priced analog, needed P-25. (I feel stupid about it in hindsight but it happened.) So far our guys have had nothing but good to say about the Icoms. They were also the only radios I could find that are P-25, that can be made to work in a LTR trunked system which our County has talked about going to. They are also submersible in water (not that anyone in the fire service would ever do that). All this and they were about the same price as Motorola's and Kenwood's analog radios.

[nmfire]

...that can be made to work in a LTR trunked system which our County has talked about going to.

Oh god. What radio dealer is trying to sell you that?

[99mtk35]

Oh god. What radio dealer is trying to sell you that?

It came from the County Coordinator, not 100% positive of who gave him the idea, so better not to say, even though I have a good idea. I think we are by that idea now, and on to better ones (they realized they would NEVER get any grant money toward it.) But at the time they were proposing it and I didn't want to buy 35 radios that would be useless to us in a year!

[jam24u]

Icoms are great around water. Water enviroment is what made Icom. As long as you didn't drop it overboard in a thousand feet of blue water.

[jam24u]

Ok, last time I made a post that had the least little bit of criticism of one of the advertisers in the magazine, my thread was deleted by the moderator and I was admonished by the moderator to "be professional". My thread disappeared like something swallowed it up, consuming it with a great set of JAWS.

But, I digress.

With all the confusion about narrowbanding, digital, rebanding, etc, we would expect an industry magazine to ensure their writers got it right. Even more so, we would expect the Editor in Chief of that magazine to take pains to ensure that it was very clear in his writing what exactly changing rules mean to the Fire Service.

I enjoy reading Mr Eisner's writing. Most of it hits dead on. But on page 14 of the march issue, its not clear. At first blush, and asking some non-technical people to read it also, it appears to state that the industry has responded to narrowbanding by making digital radios. That made the non-technical people I showed the article to down a merry path - thinking that the FCC was requiring digital radios to narrowband.

Manufacturers were offering digital radios BEFORE any talk of narrowbanding.

APCO 25 was started in 1989. Narrowbanding was adopted in 2004.

I talked to one county in PA, that was told by their local radio shop that
they were going to have to change their entire radio system - their low band
system - due to narrowbanding. (Hint - narrowbanding does not apply to
low band - and any shop that claimed it did is either too stupid to be a radio shop, or is looking to scre* their customers)

I guess my point is - who does the Fire Service rely on for the proper information? Many of our trade magazines can't seem to get it right, many of our radio shops can't seem to get it right, who can?

Some of us in the business are trying to get the word out. Some of us also are life long radio geeks, as kids hiding under the covers with our radios, trying to "catch" that distant station. We know the rules, and the impact. But we can't seem to get it out to the masses.

I feel like someone is really failing the masses out there, and that someone is?

We have got to do a better job of communications. Not radio communications, but communications. Mr Eisner, please don't take offense, your article just happened to be the most current one I ran across.

Sleep. I need sleep! (Grin)

Better not get deleted. To me, that flat out expressed what I've been encountering. It also seems that much of the 'professional opinions' have an agenda favoring a manufacturer. There's a lot of layers within all this.

[Not2L84U2]

Island and LVFD,

Could each of you send me an e-mail at theallisonfamily@sbcglobal.net? I have a communications project I am working on and would like some technical input but don't want to tie up the forums with all of our data. Thanks!

[islandfire03]

Island and LVFD,

Could each of you send me an e-mail at theallisonfamily@sbcglobal.net? I have a communications project I am working on and would like some technical input but don't want to tie up the forums with all of our data. Thanks!

E-mail sent! :-}

[Commish5]

My department is hosting a regional communications grant. Even though you did a single department grant, was wondering if we could look at your narrative. You could e-mail to rkpetrie@tds.net

Thanks.