|
Syosset
Sept 23, 2006 21:17:07 GMT -5
Post by sendthejob on Sept 23, 2006 21:17:07 GMT -5
word on the street is that Syosset has started to use their new fequ allotment (got thru and FCC waiver some time ago)....
470.1375...pl 100.0 (I think) as a cross patch to their regular ops channel of 453.100...
no big changes other than that as of yet from what I'm told...
I'll keep you posted as I find out more..
-STJ
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 27, 2006 16:21:25 GMT -5
Post by ladder3 on Sept 27, 2006 16:21:25 GMT -5
THE PL IS 114.8
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 27, 2006 17:21:03 GMT -5
Post by NoSho Buff on Sept 27, 2006 17:21:03 GMT -5
do u hear them better on this one...whats the difference...cuz i can barely hear 580 from roslyn....
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 27, 2006 19:39:55 GMT -5
Post by sendthejob on Sept 27, 2006 19:39:55 GMT -5
yes..
it's better
new equipment, more hieght (Plainview towers LIE @ 46 instead of their HQ roof)...
put it in...
-STJ
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 28, 2006 8:04:07 GMT -5
Post by newsnick175 on Sept 28, 2006 8:04:07 GMT -5
Way to go, Syosset!
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 28, 2006 23:10:12 GMT -5
Post by NoSho Buff on Sept 28, 2006 23:10:12 GMT -5
now is this frequency active every time syosset goes out with a run or do u have ito hit the tower like a repeater to activate it?
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 29, 2006 16:14:42 GMT -5
Post by NoSho Buff on Sept 29, 2006 16:14:42 GMT -5
wow this new frequency is 100 times better than 453.1000...b4 i was able to only hear 453.1000 w/ only 1x1 reception w/ a roof-mount antenna here in Roslyn...last night they went out w/ an Auto Alarm & i was able to pick them up w/ 5x5 reception on the new freq of 470.1375 PL 114.8
nice job brothers!
|
|
|
Syosset
Sept 30, 2006 21:03:59 GMT -5
Post by newsnick175 on Sept 30, 2006 21:03:59 GMT -5
Syosset has a bag full of freqs, including some in the 500 meg band. Wonder what they are thinking of?
|
|
|
Post by TRUCK1LT on Oct 1, 2006 8:55:28 GMT -5
Syosset has a bag full of freqs, including some in the 500 meg band. Wonder what they are thinking of? MDT's I hear for the 500Mhz. What's the word on them going P25 Digital for communications ?
|
|
|
Post by newsnick175 on Oct 4, 2006 8:28:13 GMT -5
Digital for everything, if they want, but fire ground! FDNYs experance with digital for fire ground was a disaster. No need to repeat that problem. Why dedicate a frequency for MDTs when the data can be sent in "packets" when the dispatch channel is quiet.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 6, 2006 10:26:05 GMT -5
Post by Luke on Oct 6, 2006 10:26:05 GMT -5
What is the need for MDT's? Everyone responds to the firehouse, why not just grab the ticket?
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 6, 2006 13:08:13 GMT -5
Post by Taz on Oct 6, 2006 13:08:13 GMT -5
well for one it cuts down on radio traffic, depending on the system it can allow ICs to know whats coming in if they werent sure from listening
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 6, 2006 15:19:26 GMT -5
Post by TRUCK1LT on Oct 6, 2006 15:19:26 GMT -5
I also see no need for mdt's other than for haz-mat. Brentwood has one mounted in there rescue used for haz-mat and pre-plans I believe.
Nick I agree 100%. Digital is no place for fireground comms. A few cities in S. Florida use them. Some love it some hate it. But when I used to listen I heard a ton of "Please Repeat" or "unit calling ??"
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 7, 2006 17:38:22 GMT -5
Post by Luke on Oct 7, 2006 17:38:22 GMT -5
How many runs does Syosset do a year? Where does that stack up to the rest of the county? If you run paid crews, I can see more of a need for an MDT but still not 100% sold on the idea. To simply cut down on radio traffic, for Long Island, its waste of money. Why go all out on a state-of-the-are radio system, get new frequencies to operate on just to install MDT's to cut down on radio traffic?
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 7, 2006 20:43:00 GMT -5
Post by vsci on Oct 7, 2006 20:43:00 GMT -5
Digital for everything, if they want, but fire ground! FDNYs experance with digital for fire ground was a disaster. No need to repeat that problem. Why dedicate a frequency for MDTs when the data can be sent in "packets" when the dispatch channel is quiet. Very cool idea and Motorola can support it. But there are two trade-offs. The throughput is only 9.6 kbps (because it is on a P25 platform and all signals are at 9.6) and it requires Motorola's IV&D (Integrated Voice & Data) infrastructure. Currently, this is only supported on the newest version of Smartzone trunking (8.x). If one was building a large-scale trunked system to support lots of voice, the value added of IV&D is pretty good. On a small system of a few channels it would involve substantial infrastructure just to support low speed data. On the newest Smartzone trunked system you already have the hardware in place. A stand alone data system is likely to cost less than a good voice system anyway, especially on conventional. Data systems are less complex than voice systems and use less hardware. Mostly because they're designed for mobile coverage and not ht coverage. The IV&D is still a cool concept.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 7, 2006 21:00:58 GMT -5
Post by vsci on Oct 7, 2006 21:00:58 GMT -5
How many runs does Syosset do a year? Where does that stack up to the rest of the county? If you run paid crews, I can see more of a need for an MDT but still not 100% sold on the idea. To simply cut down on radio traffic, for Long Island, its waste of money. Why go all out on a state-of-the-are radio system, get new frequencies to operate on just to install MDT's to cut down on radio traffic? Not sure about how many runs but what difference does it make if the people responding do it for a living or for free? (Not being sarcastic or anything). Anyway, the computer can do a lot of cool things. You can see maps and use GPS to provide directions/routing. In a busier department, multiple calls can be stacked and routed based upon geography and immediate availability over the computer instead of jamming the airwaves. It provides a redundant form of communication, if the voice system should experience a catastrophic failure. There is also security because of private messaging. (Cell networks don't cut it because they are not public safety grade). If a larger incident arises it can be helpful to have access to satellite imagery. Report writing can be incorporated depending if department's would fill out alarm cards or other things. By using an IP-based solution it becomes possible to share CAD data with other jurisdictions and to be dispatched from other locations. Sending signals over the computer also streamlines dispatching as the dispatcher does not need to manually enter every signal for every unit. It's definitely great to get preplan information! Of course, there are the records resources you mentioned. It is a great productivity tool. It seems to get more useful every year. Even if it is not for everyone, it has grat proise.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 9, 2006 16:16:37 GMT -5
Post by Luke on Oct 9, 2006 16:16:37 GMT -5
Not sure about how many runs but what difference does it make if the people responding do it for a living or for free? (Not being sarcastic or anything).
My point was meant to be that a paid company (similar to LBFD EMS) does a lot of runs and spends a lot of time on the road. I could see the use of an MDT for them far more than Syosset. This is where my thought originated. (I am in no way associated with either organization for the record)
I cant justify in my mind the use for an MDT. Maybe I'm not looking at the larger picture but it doesnt make sense to me.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 9, 2006 20:18:41 GMT -5
Post by newsnick175 on Oct 9, 2006 20:18:41 GMT -5
I go along with Luke. A MDT is a management tool. Maybe useful for the chief and the Rescue/Hazmat truck, but there isn't a fire department on Long Island that could justify it based on need and use. The ego of some of these districts and departments amazes me! With just under 200 fire depts on LI, we collectively don't add up to FDNY. Stop dreaming and look at your depts fire/rescue hazard potential with realistic glasses. Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 19, 2006 4:54:03 GMT -5
Post by Pride373 on Oct 19, 2006 4:54:03 GMT -5
I have to disagree. Although I don't see a need for computer-based communications (responding, on scene, etc) - there is a definite benefit to be gained by using Mobile Data for location info, pre-plan, mapping and hydrant locations, and unit response lists.
There is a right way and wrong way to go about it, though. This information doesn't appear from nowhere - departments will have to gather pre-plan info.
The positives are that most departments are using some kind of CAD system to record response times anyway, and most newer CADs (EDP, Red Alert) already have client systems designed.
The other important point is that these systems do not require expensive infrastructure investments like radio modems and data repeaters. Mobile Data can be run over existing Cell Modems, which are consistent , reliable, and can transmit much more infomation. In case of system failure (highly highly unlikely), departments can revert back to paper tickets and hard maps.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 22, 2006 21:20:05 GMT -5
Post by cloroxcowboy on Oct 22, 2006 21:20:05 GMT -5
I mostly agree with Pride373. One thing, though, I'm assuming that unit response lists on computer would be real-time lists of units en route, on scene, etc.? If that's the case (which sounds good) then you might as well have response signals sent via MDT. Also, electronic signals streamline the dispatcher's job and that's never a bad thing.
I do question the degree of reliability provided by commercial wireles networks. Although they generally work very well (I can only imagine the number of transactions these networks handle daily), they are not public safety grade. The bandwidth is under the control of others and is subject to limitation during times of high demand (e.g., most of the day on 9/11).
There is the lack of backup power through generators (most have batery backup for about 4 hours). Also, coverage is under the control of others. So is system access. Backhaul utilizes commerical wirelines (T-1 and fiber) that can be subject to area failure in foul weather.
If the statement is that commercial cell network are highly reliable, then I think a fair question is would you use it for a promary means of communication?
If not, why not?
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 23, 2006 2:07:48 GMT -5
Post by Pride373 on Oct 23, 2006 2:07:48 GMT -5
I would not use commercial cell as a primary communications network for the exact reasons you mentioned above.
The question that needs to be answered is this: from a cost-benefit standpoint, is a dedicated data network worth it? Low bandwidth operations will likely cost a single district over 100k, or you can go with a broadband cell connection that will be reliable (they have to be, their business depends on it) - yes, there could be service issues for any number of reasons, but the tools that Mobile Data would provide would be considered less of a basic requirement than an added tool. You can get by without it, but it makes things easier.
Voice comms versus MDT response: Voice comms allow more flexibility during transmissions - engines can give a respond signal and include the officer in charge, or how many men - Also, a lot of responding members listen to the call develop over their pagers. Going to data would eliminate that.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 24, 2006 21:38:42 GMT -5
Post by finster on Oct 24, 2006 21:38:42 GMT -5
Couldn't -disagree- more. Reliable radio capabilities is the #1 inhibitor to widespread MDT deployment on Long Island. I have tested EVERY major carrier specifically for MDT usage, and every one of them come up short. It's signficantly worse on the North Shore. As far as system failure; hiccups with data networks over cellular is VERY common in the New York area. The other important point is that these systems do not require expensive infrastructure investments like radio modems and data repeaters. Mobile Data can be run over existing Cell Modems, which are consistent , reliable, and can transmit much more infomation. In case of system failure (highly highly unlikely), departments can revert back to paper tickets and hard maps.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 25, 2006 12:57:44 GMT -5
Post by Luke on Oct 25, 2006 12:57:44 GMT -5
Why fix something that is not broken? No department (to my knowledge) runs enough and is on the road enough to need an MDT, period! It is a waste of money. For haz-mat info, more of a use for an MDT is justified.
The tickets work fine. All the info you need about the location, size-up, exposures should be available on this ticket, hydrant location. Is this information not available? Correct me if I am wrong. The dispatcher is quite capable in relaying this information to incoming units. You hear it everyday on the radio, is there something wrong with transmitting this info over the air?
Of course an MDT is/could be very helpful but why spend money when it doesnt need to be spent? Just to say we have it? Com'on now.
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 26, 2006 8:10:52 GMT -5
Post by newsnick175 on Oct 26, 2006 8:10:52 GMT -5
Thanks, Luke! [see my previous post]
|
|
|
Syosset
Oct 28, 2006 12:56:43 GMT -5
Post by cloroxcowboy on Oct 28, 2006 12:56:43 GMT -5
Why fix something that is not broken? No department (to my knowledge) runs enough and is on the road enough to need an MDT, period! It is a waste of money. For haz-mat info, more of a use for an MDT is justified. The tickets work fine. All the info you need about the location, size-up, exposures should be available on this ticket, hydrant location. Is this information not available? Correct me if I am wrong. The dispatcher is quite capable in relaying this information to incoming units. You hear it everyday on the radio, is there something wrong with transmitting this info over the air? Of course an MDT is/could be very helpful but why spend money when it doesnt need to be spent? Just to say we have it? Com'on now. I promise I am asking this in a nice way. At what point, then, is a mobile computer justified? What if you already have preplan information? What if your new CAD system supports mobile CAD instead of printed tickets? Here's a scenario: a department has Red Alert but wants to upgrade because Red Alert does not have a standardized interface that allows future connectivity to other CAD systems. The new software supports...well...more modern features such as mobile CAD. (Actually, that's not that modern since mobile data has been around since the 1970's). The new software would require a third-party add-on to support rip-and-run tickets. Questions were raised about what to do when the trucks are already on the road with a run when another comes in. Also, how could the tickets be used to work with pre-plans, floor plans etc., especially from the commercial property owners? There are, in fairness, many commercial buildings in this service area. Now, for the big what if's. What if an agency got this stuff while lowering their budget and what if the voice and data could be run over the same channels (with voice getting priority)? What if all this was federal grant eligible? (Hint: these three things are, in fact, true). Just continuing the discussion.
|
|
|
Syosset
Feb 10, 2007 20:09:06 GMT -5
Post by cw1ny3478 on Feb 10, 2007 20:09:06 GMT -5
When syosset goes digital, will they still transmit in analog mode also how will the use pagers. they are all analog minitors..
looks like people who want to buff with real radio will have to spring for a vertex p25 capable radio.
they just came out with a p920 series which does apco 25 digital and analog
have fun buffing out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Syosset
Feb 11, 2007 14:04:18 GMT -5
Post by sfdradio on Feb 11, 2007 14:04:18 GMT -5
The dispatch channel will be cross-patched to an analog channel to support voice pagers and enable analog access by the neighbors.
Current analog dispatch of 470.1375 will be patched to future digital dispatch of 476.2875.
|
|
|
Syosset
Jul 10, 2007 23:00:03 GMT -5
Post by newsnick175 on Jul 10, 2007 23:00:03 GMT -5
6 months have gone by and SFD's frequency pool is still unused and living on borrowed time. Too bad the Village of Laurel Hollow hasn't given in and allowed an antenna tower to be built at their public works yard to support SFD's radio system. Is SFD threating to drop its contract to serve Laurel Hollow as pay back? It seems that nothing has gone right for the "teletubies". No one in Nassau wants to buy into a P-25, UHF trunk system. Why should they with the counties 500 Mhz TRS just over the hill? Recently a certain SFD member was hawking his wears to the likes of HCFAS and others in Huntington. When the SFD back story was reviled, which included a waiver for their frequencies that sighted that their needs included the future construction of a bridge from Oyster Bay to Rye [Rockefeller tryed but failed]. CC's proposal had all the traction of cold racing slicks on a frozen pond! Unable to make a deal in Huntington, CC has gone south to EFFD. Our little birdie will be whistling the tune of common sense to the ears on Conklin Ave. The best thing for CC to do is let R. Fox have those precious freqs back so a well deserving dept or two can up grade.
|
|
|
Syosset
Jul 11, 2007 16:33:05 GMT -5
Post by BNN3440 on Jul 11, 2007 16:33:05 GMT -5
6 months have gone by and SFD's frequency pool is still unused and living on borrowed time. Too bad the Village of Laurel Hollow hasn't given in and allowed an antenna tower to be built at their public works yard to support SFD's radio system. Is SFD threating to drop its contract to serve Laurel Hollow as pay back? It seems that nothing has gone right for the "teletubies". No one in Nassau wants to buy into a P-25, UHF trunk system. Why should they with the counties 500 Mhz TRS just over the hill? Recently a certain SFD member was hawking his wears to the likes of HCFAS and others in Huntington. When the SFD back story was reviled, which included a waiver for their frequencies that sighted that their needs included the future construction of a bridge from Oyster Bay to Rye [Rockefeller tryed but failed]. CC's proposal had all the traction of cold racing slicks on a frozen pond! Unable to make a deal in Huntington, CC has gone south to EFFD. Our little birdie will be whistling the tune of common sense to the ears on Conklin Ave. The best thing for CC to do is let R. Fox have those precious freqs back so a well deserving dept or two can up grade. I'll believe that when I see it....
|
|