scanSydney

Hahaha... I've never yet met a townie that didn't hate the bushies... and vice-versa... although personally it's got me beat why in either case? (Something akin to the Hatfields and the McCoys me thinks...)

Anyway, two points:

1) The RFS would say you've got the $$$ thing backwards Richard, they claim it's too expensive to be on the GRN? Somebody do the math here... how much is it per radio per month times 4000 odd radios to have access to the GRN?

The answer to this problem is of course, don't charge anybody to use the GRN! I have never been able to see the point in one NSW government department paying another NSW government department for anything... THEY'RE ALL THE NSW GOVERNMENT! The only thing this effectively does is create thousands of jobs for bean-counters that in itself costs, you guessed it, the NSW government!

and

2) There are serious problems with expecting agencies who's primary areas of operation are way out in the middle of the bush to use a radio network that's based around the major highway system in country NSW.

Maybe it's just the country boy in me but if you've ever done any 4WDing you will know that as soon as you get off the beaten track, especially in amongst the coastal ranges, you can kiss sweet goodbye to any form of mainstream communication (with the obvious exception of satellite phones) and GRN reception is no exception. IMO, that is the main reason you will never get NPWS & RFS to commit 100% to the GRN, which BTW, is the same reason the NSW Police Force won't commit to it, the GRN simply cannot provide the coverage of a PMR network across the entirety of the state.

That's my 2c anyway...

Hi all, point one agreed why we do this ill never know, robbing peter to pay paul comes to mind. you wouldnt know with these dopes we call a state govt. yes i know we have to show whose speanding what, all it does is keep beancounters in ajob, something that this govt is over bloated with!!!!

point 2, agreed too Andrew, only have to drive to my area to see why the GRN DONT work in my area, and im not that far from sydney. Ive mentioned this point before, the GRN isnt a one size fits all and i feel the RFS is justfied with having a PMR network in this area. there is a fair chunk of my area not covered by the GRN and as ive said in the past why bother to change it given the population in these areas. Even the PMR network in my area does not supply 100% coverage but its better than what the GRN supplies. We were on the GRN and it failed miserably for us so they have just bolstered the PMR network and it works for us.
Saying that im not anti GRN and in fact love having it around, in fact i wish we could have access to it, in some spots it would help us. i also cant understand why some RFS areas particuarly in region east have a PMR network when the GRN works perfectly well. i heard the sunday morning traffic on GA88 Sutherland all chatting on the GRN once there was an incident all not involved with the incident were told to go to PMR, yet they mostly use the GRN for their operations. i dont understand the double up in those areas??
sadly for areas like Crookwell and Tuena the GRN is a long way off if ever.
cheers
Matt

BerryV wrote:
Richard, I'm not suggesting to just use NextG as primary outside coverage. Just simply another option in the radio that if no network is available comms are not lost.

And to your point about links. There is a PDF showing all the current duplication of service on the ACMA site. I am sure you have seen it. I'll find it and post.it will be cheaper to combine and work from there.

I understand your view on RFS, but that's expected from a NSW fire person

Berry,

Now I understand your point! They do that anyway... our guys just switch to their mobile when all else fails so no need for a special radio to achieve that.

Yep, I've seen it and we (myself & my boss) have been pushing for integrated linking for many years but there is not the will among agencies to work together on such a plan. If you know me you might also know I've been trying to get agencies to share, with extremely limited success.

I'd hold the same view even if I wasn't... Some things are blatantly obvious, and this issue is one of them. I had another agency boss ring me yesterday, and he is a good mate of mine, complaining that he was going to have to reassign & buy a lot of new links- he received the same degree of sympathy from me. People knew 400MHz link spectrum was scarce more than a decade ago- many of us took the hint & moved to 900MHz but some just kept on buying more 400MHz stuff. Now they have a problem... That's life... I would prefer to kick out links that could go higher to make way for more 400MHz base channels than following the Yanks down the road of 700MHz trunking. They stuffed up, we don't have to copy them.

Cheers,

Richard

Bigfella237 wrote: Hahaha... I've never yet met a townie that didn't hate the bushies... and vice-versa... although personally it's got me beat why in either case? (Something akin to the Hatfields and the McCoys me thinks...)

Anyway, two points:

1) The RFS would say you've got the $$$ thing backwards Richard, they claim it's too expensive to be on the GRN? Somebody do the math here... how much is it per radio per month times 4000 odd radios to have access to the GRN?

The answer to this problem is of course, don't charge anybody to use the GRN! I have never been able to see the point in one NSW government department paying another NSW government department for anything... THEY'RE ALL THE NSW GOVERNMENT! The only thing this effectively does is create thousands of jobs for bean-counters that in itself costs, you guessed it, the NSW government!

and

2) There are serious problems with expecting agencies who's primary areas of operation are way out in the middle of the bush to use a radio network that's based around the major highway system in country NSW.

Maybe it's just the country boy in me but if you've ever done any 4WDing you will know that as soon as you get off the beaten track, especially in amongst the coastal ranges, you can kiss sweet goodbye to any form of mainstream communication (with the obvious exception of satellite phones) and GRN reception is no exception. IMO, that is the main reason you will never get NPWS & RFS to commit 100% to the GRN, which BTW, is the same reason the NSW Police Force won't commit to it, the GRN simply cannot provide the coverage of a PMR network across the entirety of the state.

That's my 2c anyway...

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I certainly don't hate them but they could do with a lot more discipline on how they use radio. Our guys have their moments but Chaos Theory seems to rule RFS when it comes to RF management.

Berry's already made some good points & I agree with him & his ideas (including those he thinks might cost me my job!), but I think your ideas deserve to be considered.

If all radios were able to use the GRN for free what do you think would happen? Radios that don't need to be on it suddenly would be. Network capacity goes up the spout... Price is a good way to regulate usage. We can argue about whether prices are too high, too low till the cows come home but we need to invest in radio networks- that means management & maintenance. What the RFS & many agencies don't do is invest properly- installs are often dodgy, maintenance isn't done often enough, and what management? So you compare that with the GRN... 24/7 management, regular maintenance, high cost links & infrastructure... yep, that's a fair comparison!

Major highway coverage? What, like Lightning Ridge or Collarenabri? Or Barradine? There is nothing, in theory, that prevents a trunked system from covering remote areas any less than an equivalent UHF PMR system. But some common sense is needed- if the traffic isn't there why should any site be trunked? Bases aren't what cost- towers & huts are what cost big bucks. Go up to hilltops like I do & see the waste that goes on building what in some cases is total cr*p. Put everyone between 400 & 480MHz, share antennas via multicoupling so that everyone gets optimum coverage (not just the tower owner), and listen for the improvement.

And the Police HAVE committed to it- on the North Coast where the coverage will be better than what they currently have. Sydney will happen, bet your testicle on it!

Cheers,

Richard

agree Richard,

If all agencies had 24x7 maintenance contracts on all of their radio gear and repeaters i think they would find it far cheaper to move over to nswgrn.

I've tried convincing my bosses of that but to date they seem to think getting the radios checked once every 6 to 12 months, only getting the repeater checked when it dies is acceptable...

ivahri wrote:And the Police HAVE committed to it- on the North Coast where the coverage will be better than what they currently have. Sydney will happen, bet your testicle on it!
Cheers,
Richard

BerryV wrote:Don't believe me, got for a trip to a couple locations in sydney and watch how many radios affiliate with the network you can guess who they all are by the location.

Hint hint head out to Parramatta for the day