Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Newcastle/Hunter Valley to Tweed Heads and Central West

Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby crafty » Fri May 10, 2013 9:41 am

Below are the frequencies for the Coffs Harbour City Council P25 system:

http://www.vertel.com.au/my-files/Coffs%20Harbour%20City%20Council%20.pdf

164.2250 (NAC 100) - Mt Wondurrigah (SW of Coffs)
163.9375 (NAC 100) - Sawtell Reservoir
163.4750 (NAC 100) - Macauleys Reservoir (North Coffs)
163.7500 (NAC 100) - Mt Coramba (NW of Coffs)

cheers
Allison
crafty
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:56 pm
Location: Coffs Harbour

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby Wonky » Fri May 10, 2013 4:02 pm

Thanks Allison, I take it is a conventional and not a trunking system?
Wonky
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:08 pm

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby Sigint » Fri May 10, 2013 5:50 pm

Wonky wrote:Thanks Allison, I take it is a conventional and not a trunking system?

According to my records:-

Mt Wondurrigah - 164.2250, 164.6375
Sawtell Reservoir- 163.9375, 164,2625, 164.5750
Macauleys Reservoir - 163.9375, 164.2625, 164.5750
Mt Coramba - 163.7500, 164.3625

And there are also three frequencies at Woolgoola - 162.8750, 163.1750, 163.6250

But previous posts on this Forum say that it is Conventional.

--
Sigint
Sigint
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby Chrisco » Fri May 10, 2013 10:16 pm

don't you love those case studies
Uniden UBCD996T x3 | UBCT-9 | UBCD396T | UBC61XLT | UM423AM | MC2800 | UBC60XLT | ICOM IC-41s/w | IC-M34 | USDS100 | SDR |IC-400PRO
twitter/IG
User avatar
Chrisco
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:18 pm
Location: Sydney North

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby news » Fri May 10, 2013 10:30 pm

Yet another stupid decision(at least Tait gear and not moto was used....)

My opinion is simple.

Govt should make a mandate that every single govt agency are forced to migrate to the GRN(which would look after all trunked and conventional systems). Get rid of all other splinter networks everywhere and work out a simple reasonable fee for all users to be on the system(different rates for users who need more airtime/coverage). examples of a waste, first one that comes to mind is the train radio GSMR. What a joke that is, then every agency using their own comms systems etc. my local council uses tait 2010 radios that are literally falling to bits and half of the radios no longer work!

Imagine the buying power of one agency that purchases the gear for the network!. The second thing I would do is go and hire good people from Coles or Woolworths and get them to negotiate the trading terms and deals.
news
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:39 pm

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby Longreach » Fri May 10, 2013 11:42 pm

Yeah great local councils on GRN, dont need reminding how fantastic SSC is on the GRN.
As ive long said the GRN is not a one size fits all approach. It also dont cover large slabs of NSW either. My local council runs on the Vertel VHF MPT system. while it works for them just leave it there.
cheers
Matt
VK2MRC
Longreach
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Goulburn NSW

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby news » Sat May 11, 2013 12:30 am

Longreach wrote:Yeah great local councils on GRN, dont need reminding how fantastic SSC is on the GRN.
As ive long said the GRN is not a one size fits all approach. It also dont cover large slabs of NSW either. My local council runs on the Vertel VHF MPT system. while it works for them just leave it there.
cheers
Matt


Matt, My View: The current state of the GRN is only the way it is because of hot headed people that get paid too much.

The "GRN" should be the Government Controlled Network that consists of a combination of Trunked, Conventional & IP networks that form a common communication architecture where all agencies requiring communication that receive funding from the NSW Govt are FORCED to be a part of.

This system might be HF, VHF, UHF, Microwave, MESH, IP or any other form. As a community, we simply should not be paying for multiple forms of communication that are overlapped in so many ways. From my location I can receive no less than 9 different local council conventional radio systems(maybe more if I had the time to listen). I am not located on the side of a mountain 150m above sea level, I am in metro sydney!

Prime Example, Why should a very major govt agency not be able to use a portable radio in a rail tunnel within a metro area on a normal conventional working channel when a govt funded volunteer agency member be able to use a radio in the same spot with near "perfect" coverage on the current GRN? This is simply stupid.

Matt; I agree with you, the current GRN as a trunked network is not a one size fits all miracle. However, you need to get out of the mindset of the term "GRN " as directly relating to the current trunked only system.

NOTE: Comments posted are my own and in no way represent the views of my employer.......
news
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:39 pm

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby rustynswrail » Sat May 11, 2013 9:53 am

news wrote:
Longreach wrote:Yeah great local councils on GRN, dont need reminding how fantastic SSC is on the GRN. As ive long said the GRN is not a one size fits all approach. It also dont cover large slabs of NSW either. My local council runs on the Vertel VHF MPT system. while it works for them just leave it there. cheers Matt


Matt, My View: The current state of the GRN is only the way it is because of hot headed people that get paid too much. The "GRN" should be the Government Controlled Network that consists of a combination of Trunked, Conventional & IP networks that form a common communication architecture where all agencies requiring communication that receive funding from the NSW Govt are FORCED to be a part of. This system might be HF, VHF, UHF, Microwave, MESH, IP or any other form. As a community, we simply should not be paying for multiple forms of communication that are overlapped in so many ways. From my location I can receive no less than 9 different local council conventional radio systems(maybe more if I had the time to listen). I am not located on the side of a mountain 150m above sea level, I am in metro sydney! Prime Example, Why should a very major govt agency not be able to use a portable radio in a rail tunnel within a metro area on a normal conventional working channel when a govt funded volunteer agency member be able to use a radio in the same spot with near "perfect" coverage on the current GRN? This is simply stupid. Matt; I agree with you, the current GRN as a trunked network is not a one size fits all miracle. However, you need to get out of the mindset of the term "GRN " as directly relating to the current trunked only system. NOTE: Comments posted are my own and in no way represent the views of my employer.......



News et al,

Some years ago I worked for a government department in their communications section, this was just prior to the GRN coming online. I was critical of the GRN, mainly because of a bias from within the department I worked and a considerable amount of mis-information being floated by those outside the equipment supply chain - ie non Motorola radio companies. They perceived a loss of income because they would not be able to sell their products to those agencies that would be migrating to the GRN.

I have since altered my view. Keeping in mind and agreeing with the "one size doesn't always fit all," approach, the GRN could be more widely distributed across the state, it could be available to more agencies and it could provide exceptional value for money to its users. But, for reasons best known to its administrators the expansion of the GRN seems to have come to a halt. That some government agencies are exempt from using the GRN and the Government (irrespective of its political stand) wants to make a profit from the very departments it funds!

Surely the more users means less costs, as the outlays are spread over a larger number of users? That if governments insist on charging departments for access, then use the income to expand the network to increase the potential of the network. It's the old adage of "you have to spend money to make money." Otherwise allocate a few hundred million to the GRN, rather than some of the other bloody stupid projects funded by the NSW government and make the GRN a truly statewide network. And yes I agree with NEWS, it doesn't have to been a totally trunking system, afterall the current series of audio bridges (with one or two exceptions) work perfectly. And yes I agree with Matt, SSC is an absolute pain in the bits you sit on. Thankfully they are isolated to one or two sites, which is the trick. Site / sites specific users. Limit their access to all sites - problem solved. It is technicaly possible and was the norm under the old analogue system.

Anyway my $3.50 worth.

R
Sarcasm, because beating the crap out of people is illegal!
User avatar
rustynswrail
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:18 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Coffs Harbour City Council P25 System

Postby matthewn1983 » Sat May 11, 2013 7:07 pm

back on topic for a sec
Grant also posted some information which was buried inside another topic for those interested in the Coffs Council system
http://scansydney.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=383&hilit=coffs+harbour+p25&start=10#p10284
matthewn1983
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:41 am


Return to NSW (Northern / Western Regions)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

x