GRN P25 Pt2

[ivahri]

well maybe the person involved should know his/her job better. a check on ACMA would have told him/her that other services were nearby, and a shift 25khz above would have solved the issue.
as far as im concerned the only person in breach is the GCIO as they are the ones using an unlicenced frequncy. i would have thought first in best dressed?
as for the GRN vs others licencing in that 403-420mhz spectrum i didnt thing the GCIO had exclusive rights on that part of the spectrum and i keep saying its STILL NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
im sure this wouldnt be an issue if both services were using both an analogue channel with a different subtone but given how the digital bleeds thru its definately an issue. im not the only person in my area annoyed by it, Trying to do a job today in Marulan just about proved pointless with this problem at hand.
anyway some in my area have now marked it as a safety issue so they are now taking steps to sort the problem.

cheers
Matt

Matt,

You really need to do your homework... There is a Premiers Directive dating back to Bob Carr's time still in force that directs that ALL NSW Government radio licencing is to be done with the consent of the GCIO. That is what I was referring to. And who said one size does fits all? I certainly didn't but lets not try to justify single agency networks running in parallel to the GRN using the same very scarce spectrum- and then, if I read you right, whinge that they are copping interference from the GRN!

If the service at the Gib is running unlicenced then you need to first advise your RFS tech (your local Superintendent will know who that is) who can then take it up with the right person at GCIO or Motorola at the NOCC. You gain nothing bellyaching about it here... Sorry, I don't want to have a go at you but you seem to only see a small part of the big picture. Mistakes get made- no big news in that! It is what you do about it that matters.

Cheers,

Richard

[system_tech]

For those that know me I have had a LOT to do with GRN in previous years, and going back to 1995.

Those of us who know the older arrangements KNOW that the use of many 400 - 420 MHz pairs used by SES / RFS / etc were only meant to be outside the existing GRN footprint (wayback) and were to be subsumed by GRN as the GRN expanded on the premise that the agencies would then use the GRN in accordance with the Premiers Directive. This was an agreement between the then TCU (now GCIO) and the specific agencies.

This in many cases has NOT happened and has made frequency planning for GRN very difficult.

I could give you numerous examples of where RFS especially (but others too) have retained the PMRs on what are now GRN sites arguing that they get better coverage ... poppycock .. same hill .. same tower .. sometimes same antennas .. and the coverage is exactly the same!

The instance that is being discussed about Marulan may or may not come under this issue, I have no idea so not commenting directly on this one BUT I can tell you that RFS have often not played fair within the rules. [At simplistic face value it seems GRN / GCIO have made a msitake here but then we don't know the full story and we probably won't!]

I can point out RFS PMRs that are licenced to place A but are really at place B. Not cricket eh?

With the new arrangements for the 400 - 420 MHz and 450 - 470 MHz as announced by ACMA recently you will find that:

* trunking is favoured .. read here that people that should trunk will be suggested to do exactly that

* each of the 2 bands above will essentially divided in to govt and non-govt sections and management of the govt spectrum will more than likely coordinated by the respective govts and it would not be a long stretch to say that an group such as NSW GCIO will get a greater mandate to manange the allocations of ALL NSW govt agenices.

* you will find that the former higglety-pigglety frequency assignments will stop and RFS, SES etc etc will be changing frequencies from allocations now in the commercial sections and move to what wil be the govt section and GCIO / Govt would be silly not to rationalise the allocations!

Anyway Im basically with Richard on this one, in fact we have travelled parallel roads regarding GRN, he has described the frequency planning / allocation quite well and I know that he knows of many more inconsistencies with what has happened with govt allocations in NSW.

Finally .. for 14 years of shift working I had daily contact with all of the GRN agencies during my shifts. As a radio specialist I was also across frequency allocations and had to look at problems such as Richard mentioned earlier above using the same frequency when it concerned GRN so I had a fair idea as to which agencies were better at playing by the rules (and deviating from industry "norms" such as not using sub-tone etc).

S T

[rustynswrail]

For those that know me I have had a LOT to do with GRN in previous years, and going back to 1995. Those of us who know the older arrangements KNOW that the use of many 400 - 420 MHz pairs used by SES / RFS / etc were only meant to be outside the existing GRN footprint (wayback) and were to be subsumed by GRN as the GRN expanded on the premise that the agencies would then use the GRN in accordance with the Premiers Directive. This was an agreement between the then TCU (now GCIO) and the specific agencies. This in many cases has NOT happened and has made frequency planning for GRN very difficult. I could give you numerous examples of where RFS especially (but others too) have retained the PMRs on what are now GRN sites arguing that they get better coverage ... poppycock .. same hill .. same tower .. sometimes same antennas .. and the coverage is exactly the same! The instance that is being discussed about Marulan may or may not come under this issue, I have no idea so not commenting directly on this one BUT I can tell you that RFS have often not played fair within the rules. [At simplistic face value it seems GRN / GCIO have made a msitake here but then we don't know the full story and we probably won't!]
I can point out RFS PMRs that are licenced to place A but are really at place B. Not cricket eh? With the new arrangements for the 400 - 420 MHz and 450 - 470 MHz as announced by ACMA recently you will find that:
* trunking is favoured .. read here that people that should trunk will be suggested to do exactly that
* each of the 2 bands above will essentially divided in to govt and non-govt sections and management of the govt spectrum will more than likely coordinated by the respective govts and it would not be a long stretch to say that an group such as NSW GCIO will get a greater mandate to manange the allocations of ALL NSW govt agenices.
* you will find that the former higglety-pigglety frequency assignments will stop and RFS, SES etc etc will be changing frequencies from allocations now in the commercial sections and move to what wil be the govt section and GCIO / Govt would be silly not to rationalise the allocations!
Anyway Im basically with Richard on this one, in fact we have travelled parallel roads regarding GRN, he has described the frequency planning / allocation quite well and I know that he knows of many more inconsistencies with what has happened with govt allocations in NSW.
Finally .. for 14 years of shift working I had daily contact with all of the GRN agencies during my shifts. As a radio specialist I was also across frequency allocations and had to look at problems such as Richard mentioned earlier above using the same frequency when it concerned GRN so I had a fair idea as to which agencies were better at playing by the rules (and deviating from industry "norms" such as not using sub-tone etc).
S T

If I could add my 2 cents worth. I think that there are two primary criticisms of the GRN, that departments use as an excuse not to join, first that it is not a truly state wide system (something that I think it should be). Secondly, when the pressure is on the system tends to fail users (lockouts etc). Whether that is down to poor training of individuals or a systemic fault remains to be seen.

R

[Bigfella237]

If I could add my 2 cents worth. I think that there are two primary criticisms of the GRN, that departments use as an excuse not to join, first that it is not a truly state wide system (something that I think it should be). Secondly, when the pressure is on the system tends to fail users (lockouts etc). Whether that is down to poor training of individuals or a systemic fault remains to be seen. R

It's the old catch-22... to attract more users (I'm thinking of the NSWPF but there are others) the system needs to be expanded (more sites and more bases per site), to expand the system requires more money to be spent, to get more money you need to attract more users!

~ I can point out RFS PMRs that are licenced to place A but are really at place B. Not cricket eh? ~ S T

I could list about half-a-dozen examples of this in my local area alone! The RFS are shocking when it comes to moving assignments and even creating new ones without bothering to notify the ACMA (although they're not the only ones), the thing that gets me is there's absolutely no reason for it as all 'emergency services' staffed by volunteers are exempt from ACMA licence fees anyway (source: ACMA website)!

Andrew

[ivahri]

For those that know me I have had a LOT to do with GRN in previous years, and going back to 1995. Those of us who know the older arrangements KNOW that the use of many 400 - 420 MHz pairs used by SES / RFS / etc were only meant to be outside the existing GRN footprint (wayback) and were to be subsumed by GRN as the GRN expanded on the premise that the agencies would then use the GRN in accordance with the Premiers Directive. This was an agreement between the then TCU (now GCIO) and the specific agencies. This in many cases has NOT happened and has made frequency planning for GRN very difficult. I could give you numerous examples of where RFS especially (but others too) have retained the PMRs on what are now GRN sites arguing that they get better coverage ... poppycock .. same hill .. same tower .. sometimes same antennas .. and the coverage is exactly the same! The instance that is being discussed about Marulan may or may not come under this issue, I have no idea so not commenting directly on this one BUT I can tell you that RFS have often not played fair within the rules. [At simplistic face value it seems GRN / GCIO have made a msitake here but then we don't know the full story and we probably won't!]
I can point out RFS PMRs that are licenced to place A but are really at place B. Not cricket eh? With the new arrangements for the 400 - 420 MHz and 450 - 470 MHz as announced by ACMA recently you will find that:
* trunking is favoured .. read here that people that should trunk will be suggested to do exactly that
* each of the 2 bands above will essentially divided in to govt and non-govt sections and management of the govt spectrum will more than likely coordinated by the respective govts and it would not be a long stretch to say that an group such as NSW GCIO will get a greater mandate to manange the allocations of ALL NSW govt agenices.
* you will find that the former higglety-pigglety frequency assignments will stop and RFS, SES etc etc will be changing frequencies from allocations now in the commercial sections and move to what wil be the govt section and GCIO / Govt would be silly not to rationalise the allocations!
Anyway Im basically with Richard on this one, in fact we have travelled parallel roads regarding GRN, he has described the frequency planning / allocation quite well and I know that he knows of many more inconsistencies with what has happened with govt allocations in NSW.
Finally .. for 14 years of shift working I had daily contact with all of the GRN agencies during my shifts. As a radio specialist I was also across frequency allocations and had to look at problems such as Richard mentioned earlier above using the same frequency when it concerned GRN so I had a fair idea as to which agencies were better at playing by the rules (and deviating from industry "norms" such as not using sub-tone etc).
S T

If I could add my 2 cents worth. I think that there are two primary criticisms of the GRN, that departments use as an excuse not to join, first that it is not a truly state wide system (something that I think it should be). Secondly, when the pressure is on the system tends to fail users (lockouts etc). Whether that is down to poor training of individuals or a systemic fault remains to be seen.

R

R,

I think people need to take off their Rose Coloured glasses. When the GRN "fails", every other PMR system would have exploded under the load. So a single channel system running at 100% duty with lengthy queuing is better than receiving busies (from past stats mostly less than 5-10secs MAX) on a multichannel trunking system? It never has been a state wide system, is not sold as a state wide system, and every major GRN agency that operates outside the footprint has very similiar conventional PMR solutions. I was also around when the NSWFB ran simplex, line controlled VHF bases in Sydney- I would have found it funny if it hadn't been so sad & scary. Now they have 4 wide area talkgroups with 6 more in reserve- and people knock the GRN! Come off it!

There is no such thing as the infinite capacity radio network... but some people/agencies have demonstrated appalling discipline when the poo hit the fan in the past. Hopefully education is improving.

Cheers,

Richard

[ivahri]

If I could add my 2 cents worth. I think that there are two primary criticisms of the GRN, that departments use as an excuse not to join, first that it is not a truly state wide system (something that I think it should be). Secondly, when the pressure is on the system tends to fail users (lockouts etc). Whether that is down to poor training of individuals or a systemic fault remains to be seen. R

It's the old catch-22... to attract more users (I'm thinking of the NSWPF but there are others) the system needs to be expanded (more sites and more bases per site), to expand the system requires more money to be spent, to get more money you need to attract more users!

~ I can point out RFS PMRs that are licenced to place A but are really at place B. Not cricket eh? ~ S T

I could list about half-a-dozen examples of this in my local area alone! The RFS are shocking when it comes to moving assignments and even creating new ones without bothering to notify the ACMA (although they're not the only ones), the thing that gets me is there's absolutely no reason for it as all 'emergency services' staffed by volunteers are exempt from ACMA licence fees anyway (source: ACMA website)!

Andrew

Andrew,

It is still far cheaper to increase capacity on an existing network & to add extra sites than to build duplicate/parallel networks. The issue lies in the spectrum needed, and in the past internal politics & "agendas". The times they are a changing... but some people will resist to their last breath as they fear the impact on their jobs. I'm not saying there aren't challenges, but see my comment about Rose Coloured Glasses as this is pertinent to this issue. If you have a "better" network then you are in a strong position to resist, but in every criteria EXCEPT for coverage they are on very shakey ground. They know it, I know it, and so do most in the game.

Cheers,

Richard

[centralcoastscanman]

I'd shudder to imagine the cost it would be to make the GRN a truely statewide system, as really there would be some locations that might get an emergency vehicle pop up on a grn channel once every 6 months otherwise they would have no radio traffic.

I think everyone would agree some type of smartbridge for this type of situation would be money well spent rather than a full blown grn repeater with a couple of channels...

I however do agree that if money other agencies were spending on their own radio infrastructure was spent on the grn i'm guessing each grn site would have a minimum of 15 voice channels which would be a dramatic improvement which would benefit all agencies..

[rustynswrail]

If I could add my 2 cents worth. I think that there are two primary criticisms of the GRN, that departments use as an excuse not to join, first that it is not a truly state wide system (something that I think it should be). Secondly, when the pressure is on the system tends to fail users (lockouts etc). Whether that is down to poor training of individuals or a systemic fault remains to be seen. R

R,
There is no such thing as the infinite capacity radio network... but some people/agencies have demonstrated appalling discipline when the poo hit the fan in the past. Hopefully education is improving. Cheers, Richard

Richard,

You have missed my point. The 'government' could easily remove the need for separate PMR systems by expanding the GRN state wide, rather than the bit here and a bit there system it is.

As a user and supporter of the GRN, I know how it works. Alas some users do not and therefore blame the system when the system is not to blame. But as you said, there is no perfect 100 percent radio network the GRN included.

So does the Department of Services Technology and Administration assume control of all government radio, including the servicing, engineering etc with the funds previously used to support these networks, being re-directed to GRN expansion? Should DST&A taking over the training of all users of the GRN to ensure consistant practises? That would open a can of worms wouldn't it?

R

[ivahri]

Hi Rusty,

I better precede this with a cautionary "the views that I express are entirely my own & not necessarily that of my employer..."

Why does it have to be state wide? I had this fight with NP&WS & I'll fight the GRN on this... What is the point of having a notional state wide network that is stretched so financially tight that they can't fix deadspots in areas of high usage? While I can't get problems in greater Sydney fixed- areas where there is radio traffic to warrant trunking- then they should forget about the Inverells, the Tenterfields, the Balranalds, where PMR handles the traffic loads just fine. Focus on where trunking is the only option & let PMR do what it is best at in the rural areas. But cease the unnecessary duplication!

What we need is shared backbone links for the emergency services... providing highspeed wireless ethernet to the base sites so agencies can move to P25. Shared antenna multicoupling properly engineered & maintained. Remote monitoring of all PMR bases- 24/7. Backup generators... then the agencies can be told that they shall work together to properly engineer their PMR networks... no agency drama queens who refuse to work with others. I'm working with SES & Ambos this week on a job that addresses a few of these but we need certain other agencies to work with us- we all win if everyone works together, but trunking isn't needed statewide.

I guess the answer to your last question is to wait & see what happens next. I don't think that group is the logical group to do that because they don't have the agency experience needed to do it properly. But I can see a time when a group of agency techs & engineers move to a single agency & then act as a "conduit" to co-ordinate & manage the networks. Training is a nightmare no matter where you go.

Cheers,


Richard

[rustynswrail]

Hi Rusty,

I better precede this with a cautionary "the views that I express are entirely my own & not necessarily that of my employer..."

Why does it have to be state wide? I had this fight with NP&WS & I'll fight the GRN on this... What is the point of having a notional state wide network that is stretched so financially tight that they can't fix deadspots in areas of high usage? While I can't get problems in greater Sydney fixed- areas where there is radio traffic to warrant trunking- then they should forget about the Inverells, the Tenterfields, the Balranalds, where PMR handles the traffic loads just fine. Focus on where trunking is the only option & let PMR do what it is best at in the rural areas. But cease the unnecessary duplication!

What we need is shared backbone links for the emergency services... providing highspeed wireless ethernet to the base sites so agencies can move to P25. Shared antenna multicoupling properly engineered & maintained. Remote monitoring of all PMR bases- 24/7. Backup generators... then the agencies can be told that they shall work together to properly engineer their PMR networks... no agency drama queens who refuse to work with others. I'm working with SES & Ambos this week on a job that addresses a few of these but we need certain other agencies to work with us- we all win if everyone works together, but trunking isn't needed statewide.

I guess the answer to your last question is to wait & see what happens next. I don't think that group is the logical group to do that because they don't have the agency experience needed to do it properly. But I can see a time when a group of agency techs & engineers move to a single agency & then act as a "conduit" to co-ordinate & manage the networks. Training is a nightmare no matter where you go.

Cheers,


Richard

Richard,

I should have preceded that with a cautionary "in an ideal world..."

As always state wide is never state wide. Th New England for example is a reasonably dense rural population, high road traffic etc and yet has been ignored, notwithstanding future projects of course. The Riverina, Wagga, Temora, Albury ignored.

Camerons Corner, maybe that don't need to put a base there.

R