[FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps aphelps at enter.net
Sun Sep 18 11:43:23 EDT 2005 

>Well that is nice Arthur. Butter the old Chief up before you shot him.

That was a compliment.  You don't shoot someone down by playing Devil's
Advocate.

I was wondering when someone would mention the Motorola/Harris Seneca
radios.  

-----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 11:13 AM
To: Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps; 'Larry Van Horn, N5FPW'; 'Discussion of Federal
Government Communications'
Subject: Re: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

>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.

Well that is nice Arthur. Butter the old Chief up before you shot him. 
;-))))

> 1) Does anyone know what percentage of FBI digital transmissions are DES?

In this area and we had extensive FBI and ATF comms during the search for 
Eric Robert Rudolph on a major new system they transpoted into this are for 
the search, most of the comms were DES with an occasional transmission in 
the clear and the 167.9 Hz PL trick worked fine. We have NOT seen any P25 
for the FBI to date.

> 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't answer that cause Uniden has not discussed the release of a 
base/mobile unit in this newer technology we see in the 396. I'm sure they 
are working on it.

> 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.

Sorry I have to disagree with you here. I honestly don't see it as a big 
thing. If the agency is using P25 we don't need PL decoding. As we move into

this new phase of  fed monitoring, P25 will become more the rule than the 
exception (by the end of 2007 it will rule period on all bands). PL tones 
with I am sure some exceptions will become a thing of the past. All the gov 
systems I currently monitor down here that have P25 are using it almost 
exclusively. And as the change over occurs toward the 1 Jan 2008 deadline 
for all gov freqs to be narrowbanded this will be the case nationwide.

As for what scanner folks will or will not pay, there are "a lot" that 
holler now. I understand that. These radios are not cheap. Those that can 
afford the new technology will hear more and those that cannot will continue

to hear less and less. I for one am very very grateful to see the gains we 
have made in scanner technology and I am very grateful to Uniden and GRE 
that they have stuck with our marketplace and made new products available. 
And I am sure that both will continue to push that envelope even further in 
the future.

Is the 396 perfect - nope and I said so in my review in MT. But right not it

is on top of the heap with its RS cousins from GRE. When I look at radio 
catalogs from just five years ago, I can't help but smile that these two 
companies saved what was then a dying hobby thanks to Congress and the 800 
cell mess. I for one am glad to see we have been able to move on past that 
point.

73 and good hnting all,

Chief

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps" <aphelps at enter.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 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification


>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
>
> 



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

More information about the FedCom mailing list