[FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

Sun Sep 18 12:09:09 EDT 2005

I know you were kidding. That is why there was a big smiley at the end of 
the message. Easy Arthur. I am not mad at you!!

Chief

Larry Van Horn, N5FPW

----- 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 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [FedCom] RE: Frequency Verification

> >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
>
> 