[FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

[Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps]

I think I represent the majority of FEDCOM members when I say that we always
value your input.  Your writings are logical, informative and certainly
rationale. However, since my former employment involved extensive
fact-finding, allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a few minutes. 
1) Does anyone know what percentage of FBI digital transmissions are DES?
Then, of course, this issue impacts on the other federal entities that are
monitored, e.g. USSS, BATF, DHS, DEA, etc. 
2) I believe that most of us expect any "second" generation scanner to cost
the same or more than current digital scanners.  If the scanner "folks" are
aware of this problem, I can't help but wonder how costly a fix would
ultimately impact on the base price of the new scanner. (Of course, there
are other glitches that need attention as well.)
I can understand their concern about cost vs. sales, but until we as
consumers get some approximate $ estimate, the frustration with P25 vs. PL
will continue and the scanner folks will continue to be criticized.


-----Original Message-----
From: fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Larry Van Horn, N5FPW
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 9:30 AM
To: Discussion of Federal Government Communications
Subject: Re: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

> This is true.  Sadly the damn scanner folks can't figure that out!

I think that is a bit unfair Terry. The "damn scanner folks" are well aware 
of it and know about it. But are you willing to bump the price even more for

the extra electronics? At $500 plus it is quite expensive already. In fact, 
I was the one who discovered that P25 wouldn't work with a PL tone coded for

a given freq memory location. After working  this issue with the engineers I

now fully understand why.

But let's look at this from a practical listening point of view. Actually, 
in most cases a P25 channel will be a P25 channel and you won't have a need 
for PL tones on those freqs. If they are using DES like the FBI then you can

PL code away those freqs. You aren't going to get P25 on those DES freqs 
anyway. Bottom line, if it is P25 outfit, no PL needed or required. Let's 
keep this a bit real. ;-)))

73 all and good hunting,

Larry Van Horn, N5FPW
Founding Father Fedom/Milcom
Uniden 246/396 Alpha/Beta Team

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "News1" <news1 at airmail.net>
To: "'Discussion of Federal Government Communications'" 
<fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification


> This is true.  Sadly the damn scanner folks can't figure that out! You 
> would
> think you could scan tone squelched and here clear comms that are P-25 as
> well. Of course you'd think they would let you select/decode Net ID's as
> well. Maybe someday....
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:13 PM
> To: 'Discussion of Federal Government Communications'
> Subject: RE: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification
>
> Good point, but you will not hear a digital signal that may be "in the
> clear."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of News1
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 7:18 PM
> To: 'Discussion of Federal Government Communications'
> Subject: RE: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification
>
> The best reason is so you don't have to listen to the DES encryption
> "noise". When they are coded there is no PL.  By using the PL you only 
> hear
> transmissions that are in the clear.
>
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of RadioScan at aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:05 AM
> To: fedcom at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification
>
> These are Fed frequenies we are talking about, so why would you really 
> want
> to put the PL  in for the FBI anyway...who else would be using that
> frequency
> that you "wouldn't want to monitor"?  It is not like it is some fire or
> police
> frequency.
>
>> Good.  You are doing a modified version of what I recommended in a recent
>> post.  You never know.  For example, I monitored the FBI in Philadelphia
> on
>> their common frequency with a PL of 167.9.  I, also, have the frequency
>> listed with no PL and received another transmission in P25.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
> 



_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
FedCom at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom