1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    198

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Lump532 View Post
    Don't hold me to it, but for our States 700 and 800 mhz trunked system the portables were about 1600. That included a smart charger, spare battery and a shoulder mic.

    They come ruggedized already (extra cost with Moto) and have a lot more channels (Talkgroups, whatever they call them) than the Moto's. Also, the accessories, like the shoulder mic, are significantly easier to change out.

    If memory serves me, the motos were in the 2500 range.

    I will try to remember to get exact prices and model numbers when I am back at work.
    our dealer charges us in Indiana 3500.00 each no price brake

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Miami Dade County, FL
    Posts
    23

    Default More Towers

    I need to correct one of your myths:

    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    There a numerous threads about this - but I figured one under the name narrowbanding may help people searching.

    Myths about narrowbanding include,

    3. We will need many more towers to get the same coverage. No, not really. There is a small loss in coverage - but after a lot of testing I have found it to be really minimal. With the systems I have dealt with, using a splinter channel has actually done quite well, losing much of the co-channel interference they had been experiencing.
    If you have one transmitter per channel, you're right, that's a myth. You will lose a little signal to noise ratio in fringe areas. But most users can live with that.

    BUT, if you have a larger system, with multiple transmitters per channel, working simultaneously, it gets much more complicated and much more expensive. It's not a brand thing, it's physics. The tolerances on mixing a signal on the air gets much more difficult when the signals are narrowbanded. Twice as many towers isn't too far off of an estimate. More rent, more equipment, more circuits, much more money. That that doesn't change no matter what vendor you choose. What might change is how much you pay up front versus in change orders later to get the system to work right.

    If your trunking or conventional system covers a very large area, there's a good chance you're using simulcast. Before you tell everyone it's just a matter of programming some radios, find out if you use simulcast.

    Before this gives Simulcast a bad name, it's an excellent technology for public safety radio. When you would normally start to hear static from the repeater in a single TX system, simulcast helps fill in the gaps so you rarely lose signal. The only downside is the cost to narrow band it.

    The real problem, IMHO, is that the FCC let everyone and their brother pee in the Public Safety Pool and now they wonder why it's overflowing. When my Fire Department has to share channels with school buses and plumbers, something is wrong with the system. Not the radio system, the FCC's system of frequency management.

    Ray

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Most conventional systems with multiple transmitters in a wide area are one-at-time selectable by the dispatcher or with a site-steering capable comparator. A true conventional simulcast system is very rare.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  4. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Miami Dade County, FL
    Posts
    23

    Default How rare?

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    Most conventional systems with multiple transmitters in a wide area are one-at-time selectable by the dispatcher or with a site-steering capable comparator. A true conventional simulcast system is very rare.
    Rare, but not as rare as years ago. GPS technology made Simulcast feasible and easy to maintain because it offers an extremely stable frequency reference at each site. Many of the manual or steerable systems of the 1970s and 80s are simulcast now. The real advantage is that as your users fade from one transmitter, there's an excellent chance they're in range of another. Steered or manually changed transmitters can't compensate for that. Simulcast is also used on multisite trunking systems.

    If you happen to have a mountain in your territory, a single site transmitter could be a good match and easy narrow banding. But if you're relatively flat, urban or need good building penetration, Simulcast is a great solution.

    If you have multiple transmitters and your dispatcher manually switches them, or have steering, narrowbanding will make upgrading later very expensive also. I think if you ask anyone that went from one transmitter at a time to simulcast, they won't ever want to go back. I know we never will.

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    All very true.... as long as you have the checkbook big enough to fund all the required infrastructure for it. Which is why it is still rare. It may be not as rare, but still rare.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    198

    Smile

    Well we have our meeting with motorola last nite chief and asst chief county meeting and told them what we new and what they were trying to make us buy was going to happen. So to make a long story short they told us that they owned the 154.220 and all of our other channel's and we are going to buy what they want us to buy or we ant going to have any channel's. Now to tell you all qho they think the own our channel's is they fill out the paper work for the county dispatch. Well they didn't to there home work because every fire department in the county has there on license for the channel's we use and we all have our on call letter's to kinwood just sold the entire county a new highband system for police fire and ems now only if they sale pager's.

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy1213 View Post
    Well we have our meeting with motorola last nite chief and asst chief county meeting and told them what we new and what they were trying to make us buy was going to happen. So to make a long story short they told us that they owned the 154.220 and all of our other channel's and we are going to buy what they want us to buy or we ant going to have any channel's. Now to tell you all qho they think the own our channel's is they fill out the paper work for the county dispatch. Well they didn't to there home work because every fire department in the county has there on license for the channel's we use and we all have our on call letter's to kinwood just sold the entire county a new highband system for police fire and ems now only if they sale pager's.
    Please, take a clue-pon.

    What was that you tried to say?
    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleMan
    Why? Because we are firemen. We are decent human beings. We would be compelled by the overwhelming impulse to save an innocent child from a tragic, painful death because in the end, we are MEN.

    I A C O J
    FTM-PTB


    Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    I have no clue wtf most of that is supposed to mean. However what little I could gather from it, Motorola is lying, they trying to scam you. Do not listen to them. Everything that I and Res343cue have said still stands.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    North East Wi. USA
    Posts
    261

    Default

    I will jump in for a bit.

    We run a county wide dispatch system that uses four primary frequencies – Paging – currently wide band simple repeater system , Police – Multi-cast narrow band, EMS – Multi-cast narrow band and Fire – also multi-cast narrow band.

    We have been running our Law and EMS frequencies as a wide band multicast system for a number of years 10 + on Law and 5+ on EMS with pretty decent results – some dead areas in the fringe – we are a long narrow county with water all around – lots of bluffs and remote Islands.

    Three years ago we were lucky to receive an AFG grant to rebuild our fire communication system, this system at the time was a simple repeater system, and the upgrade was to bring it up to a multi-cast system. Part of that upgrade was to also narrow band our existing Law and EMS frequency.

    As we moved to the narrow band system we saw a significant increase in the size of our fringe areas due to reduced coverage when narrow banding was put in place. We have been very fortunate to be able to build out our Fire System with several additional receive only sights that do not support EMS and Law, and the difference is noticeable for us. Many areas Fire can get into dispatch with a portable where the Law and EMS standing alongside of us cannot get in.

    Radios are soup to nuts – Motorola, Icom , Kenwood , and Vertex. What we found in a significant portion of the radios we owned was that yes they could “technically” narrow band, but there were many frequencies the radio would simple not accept – we found this across all manufactures. In other words if a radio could take freq 123.456 then it could take 123.4560 but not 123.4565 – not sure if that makes sense to all of you, but they could not take the “new” in between frequencies only the narrow band of the old frequencies.

    As to pagers we have a mix of Minitor 3/4/5’s most are set up with dual channel and scan. As of now paging channel has stayed wide band so we have no issues there – when we scan the other frequencies (EMS pagers scan EMS – Fire Pagers scan Fire) there is some noticeable reduction in volume and quality.

    Over all we are happy with our upgrades and are hoping to be able to upgrade the paging system to a simulcast system.


    Stay Safe

    SBLGFD

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    46

    Default narrow band

    I thought I would post this incase anyone would like to check it out.


    https://event.on24.com/eventRegistra...epage=register

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy1213 View Post
    yes our dealer told all of the department in our county that we are going to have to replace all radio's ,pager's and truck system's that's about 35 fire truck's 4 ambulance's,325 pager's and 325 portable's. we have motorola3 pager's and our portable's are xts 2500 and 5000 and are on the safe t net which is a freaken joke
    If you are on the Hoosier SAFETNET, your SAFETNET radios do NOT NEED TO BE NARROWBANDED.

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,009

    Default

    This guy is an excellent resource for anyone buying, thinking about buying, spec'ing, or just worried if they are going to comply with the new communications standards. He is giving free seminars at various venues (although there may be a cost for the venue itself in some cases, or your 911 director can help you get in) throughout the US.

    He is an attorney. Get the jokes out, I have never seen any other attorney have the grasp on the technical issues related to communication like he does. He even pops up here on Firehouse from time to time. Anyone wanting to stay out of trouble would be really smart to attend one of his seminars. His information is below his spring schedule.



    Or you can listen to salespeople, and read misinformed articles.


    IWCE - March 8-12
    Indiana NENA - March 25
    Alabama APCO - March 30
    Arkansas APCO/NENA - March 12-13
    New Jersey NENA - April 20
    Texas APCO - April 26
    APTA Bus & ParaTransit - May 3-5
    PA APCO - May 17-19

    More to come!

    ---

    Alan S. Tilles, Esq.
    Chairman, Telecommunications Department

    atilles@shulmanrogers.com | T 301.231.0930 | F 301.230.2891

    SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A.
    12505 PARK POTOMAC AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR, POTOMAC, MD 20854
    <http://www.shulmanrogers.com/>

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    130

    Unhappy

    Areas that are flat may see little coverage loss with Narrow banding, But in our area we have been testing and our portables are almost worthless other then line of sight we had a 30% or greater loss of coverage we have had to add repeaters in our trucks just to hit our towers we have been raising antennas replacing radios and trying to add repeaters and I hope when it all done its worth all the money and effort

  14. #39
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    That is highly unusual. Something more than just changing to 12.5khz modulation took place to reduce your coverage that much. What else changed?
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  15. #40
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    130

    Default

    I wish someone could tell me and we would save a lot of cash. but so far no other reason has been found and except in areas where we had issues before the truck repeater system allows our portables to get out.

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Res343cue View Post
    Hey - I can't advertise on here - neither can you.

    I can't sell my services, and the one post where I referenced offering a bid I got smacked for it. Why should you be able to?

    PS: What's the difference between a wife and an attorney? I get to screw my wife before giving her all my money. Attorneys screw you and take the money anyways.
    Actually, what I've done is offer a bunch of free advice here. Further, I've created a free website with every tidbit of information that we've come across on narrowbanding. www.narrowbandinglaw.com

    Sorry if all of this free information is considered hucksterism. I thought that I was doing the right thing. BTW, I've not asked to be paid for the dozens of APCO and other association meetings where I've done narrowbanding presentations this year and in previous years.

    Alan Tilles

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    Bottom line. Don't trust that first slick salesguy. Get some information. Talk to multiple sales guys. Ask here. (I don't have a dog in the hunt to sell you radios) DON'T trust what you google. The dates and requirements have changed so many times that there is still a LOT of misinformation running around out there. NMFIRE here on the forums is another great source.
    I agree. And if we ever have to go digital it better be VHF and it better be a technology that doesnt eat your battery in a matter of hours. Digital Mobile Radio like Mototrbo definitely seems to be a good idea but unfortunately it is not a standard.

  18. #43
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    441

    Default

    I'm a sceptic when anything Motorola appears. But apprently they selling a bunch of Mototrbo in the area to businesses and gov't/state agencies (not public safety).

    What's the scoop on Mototrbo? Some proprietary M system that won't play with anything else. Not public safety appropriate?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is you plan for narrowbanding?
    By Just a new name in forum Technology & the Emergency Services
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 03:40 PM
  2. P25 VHF Radios
    By 247365 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-07-2005, 09:15 AM
  3. Radios
    By FF_Engine04 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2002, 03:58 PM
  4. MTS or XTS Radios
    By FYERMICHAEL in forum Emergency Services Dispatcher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-03-2001, 03:31 PM
  5. Radios
    By explorer36 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-08-2000, 11:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register