[FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

Sun Sep 18 10:58:27 EDT 2005

> You know, I might agree with you except for one small thing. If the radios
> were built where they didn't hear all the intermod then that might work.

And there in is the problem. Motorola radios do not have the freq coverage 
our scanners have (that we want, need and demand). To build the kind of 
front ends needed to do the job, take a look at the cost of the WinRadio 
models. They are close to what you are talking about and run 4 figures. In 
my opinion, Uniden has done a great job of packing the features, frequency 
coverage and performance they have that you can hold in your hand and you 
can buy it for a little over $500 bucks. WInd the clock back 10 years when 
trunking first started and things were very grim then.

I am sure at some point they will work on the PL/P25 issue and they will 
find a fix and we will see it in a future model. There is no such thing as 
the perfect scanner, but the 396 definitely ranks up there with the best of 
them and I wouldn't throw away the baby with the bath water over this one 
issue. Considering all the other options in our marketplace, I will take the 
good with the bad and continue to push for perfection (knowing we will never 
achieve it) and we all have our opinions if what is perfect and no one will 
ever be 100% satisfied.

>Motorola has certainly figured it out.

At a much higher cost with less frequency coverage than we enjoy.

But I appreciate the comments Terry and I am sure that Uniden and GRE (RS) 
will continue to press the envelope as they have done over the last couple 
of years on behalf of our hobby. Let's hope the technology rise continues.

73 all,

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

Larry Van Horn, N5FPW
Assistant Editor/Milcom Columnist
Monitoring Times magazine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "News1" <news1 at airmail.net>
To: "'Larry Van Horn, N5FPW'" <larryvanhorn at monitoringtimes.com>; 
"'Discussion of Federal Government Communications'" <fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

> You know, I might agree with you except for one small thing. If the radios
> were built where they didn't hear all the intermod then that might work.
> Since they're not it leaves you with only one option, tone squelch the
> channel.  An alternative would be to have the radio only respond to P-25
> traffic when set to P-25. Sadly it will not do that either. This forces 
> you
> to monitor carrier squelch. This doesn't take lots of money, just software
> engineers that can engineer. Motorola has certainly figured it out. They
> probably drink the same water as the engineers that for years could allow 
> a
> ham radio to scan at 1/10 the scan rate of the scanners that were on the
> market!
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----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 8:30 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
>
> 