Date   

Re: P25 for Cheap

Evan Platt
 

There’s a link at the bottom of every message. 

On Nov 8, 2019, 20:58 -0800, mrseeburg2003 via Groups.Io <mrseeburg2003@...>, wrote:
How do I unsubscribe?


Re: P25 for Cheap

mrseeburg2003 <mrseeburg2003@...>
 

How do I unsubscribe?


Re: P25 for Cheap

paulduer
 

The California Highway Patrol uses encryption but publishes an as-it-happens log on the web. Go figure.

 

 

Do not say a little in many words but a great deal in a few. – Pythagoras.

 

From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mark Lassman via Groups.Io
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 8:12 PM
To: main@Uniden.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

 

I can’t see ANY logical reason why ANY normal or routine radio traffic can’t be sent over the air as normal communications and not scrambled or encrypted. With the possible exceptions of narcotics, gang, vice and other “sensitive” types of operations, the great majority of law enforcement communications does not — in my opinion — meet the criteria that would benefit from being encrypted. 

 

It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I want to know.

 

“Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying, essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.

 

I know that some Fire departments have encrypted and there’s absolutely NO reason to do THAT. Especially when different departments are going to be working together in a mutual aid situation. Fortunately, encryption by Fire departments has not been a very large movement.



On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Thomas Rafferty Jr. <trafferty936@...> wrote:

 

When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch info that shouldn't be heard by the public.  Everything else was in the clear.


From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Walls <jwalls@...>
Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io' <main@Uniden.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

 

Steve T said:

> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 

> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.

To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:

#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),

#9 was a police tac talkgroup,

#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,

#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),

#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,

#20 was a police tac talkgroup,

#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.

Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.

 

BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.

 

 

Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale

Information Services  Wireless Communications

120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206  (818) 548-4804

 

 


Re: P25 for Cheap

Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
 

A similar thing here, can't hold your cell phone to talk town (Bluetooth is okay). But the police are much more qualified so they are able to talk on the phone while driving, and listen to the radio, and looking at their terminal, and maybe reading the newspaper, and . . .  so they are safer drivers than just someone just on their phone.

Mick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe M."
To: main@Uniden.groups.io
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:37:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

> If texting while driving is illegal, it should be illegal for everyone.
>
> My state has exemptions for 'certain people'. Well, is it dangerous or
> not? If it is, how can 'certain people' be safe?
>
> I have a county (several, in fact) in my area that went from a
> voice-dispatch to text dispatch. Think about that a minute. If you are
> driving, they are forcing you to read texts to see what the call is.
> Why? Job security? (yea - think about that last question a little, too)
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> Joe M.
>
> On 11/8/2019 11:29 PM, Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
> wrote:
> > Do a search and look up how many crashes, even people killed, by law
> > enforcement looking at computer terminals while driving. With some
> > agencies, if you get caught looking at your terminal while driving, it
> > is terminal for your job! On the other hand, information can be passed
> > by radio much safer.
> >
> > Mick
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Thomas Rafferty Jr."
> > To: "main@Uniden.groups.io"
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 07:26:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> >
> > > When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to
> > give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch
> > info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the
> > clear.
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: main@Uniden.groups.io on behalf of Jim Walls
> > > Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the
> > public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
> > > To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io'
> > > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve T said:
> > >
> > > > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have
> > went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.
> > >
> > > > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or
> > computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things
> > like license and registration checks. What they don¡¦t work well for is
> > tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out
> > of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most
> > likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can¡¦t give any
> > specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
> > >
> > > To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio
> > system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all city
> > services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all of
> > the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in
> > their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the
> > past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results:
> > >
> > > #1 ¡V #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
> > >
> > > #9 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > >
> > > #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
> > >
> > > #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities
> > plus one airport fire),
> > >
> > > #12 ¡V #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
> > >
> > > #20 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > >
> > > #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup ¡V it was trash
> > collectors for one of the cities.
> > >
> > > Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125
> > minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy
> > of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly
> > what I would call silent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data
> > terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).
> > The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other units in the
> > area know what¡¦s going on. I can¡¦t tell you how many times that I
> > heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit
> > (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like ¡§I¡¦ll be
> > clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street¡¨. Happens all
> > the time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Walls - K6CCC ¡´ City of Glendale
> > >
> > > Information Services ¡´ Wireless Communications
> > >
> > > 120 N. Isabel St. ¡´ Glendale, CA 91206 ¡´ (818) 548-4804
> > >
> > > jwalls@...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Untitled Document
> >
> >
> >
> > Virus-free. www.avg.com
> >
> >
> >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
>
>
>
>
--


Re: P25 for Cheap

Mark Lassman
 

No, I can’t “point to that law”. It’s more of a generic “right to know” than any actual legal holding that we do.

No, I’m NOT easily offended and nothing you said offended me in the least. In fact, I agree with pretty much all that you said.

On Nov 8, 2019, at 8:30 PM, Joe M. <mch@nb.net> wrote:

Can you point to that law? Conceptually, I agree with you 100%. But that concept is not supported in law anywhere I've ever heard of.

I would support a 'right to listen' law that limits the steps public safety can take to thwart lawful monitoring. There would be limits on what could be encrypted (and yes, there are some things that arguable should be).

<soapbox mode on - if you are easily offended stop reading now. What follows is not political, but may trigger some readers.>

Those who act in darkness can act illegally. Those who act in daylight cannot (well, they can, but they can be caught).

The argument that the majority of the public are criminals just doesn't fly.

The newspapers don't report everything - ESPECIALLY these days! Several times I have called in tips only because I happened to know what was going on. The loss of those eyes and ears leads to more crime which leads to less desirable neighborhoods which leads to takeover by criminals. Isn't that something to avoid?

I know of areas that encrypted their police. I know there are now many more guns in those areas now because the public has no idea what is going on anymore and they don't feel safe anymore. The bad part about that is that this is a knee-jerk reaction and those people often fail to train on those guns. This leads to a worsening of the basic problem and not an improvement. It also leads to selective reporting of crimes which means some crimes are buried.

I personally believe this all stems from the macho "we can do it all without you" mentality that is a basic flaw in many people. It's a subset of the divide that is infecting the country. Public Safety does not have to be, and should not be, an individual effort. We are all responsible to keep our communities safe. All that changes with encryption is that the public is less informed. That is never good.

<soapbox mode off>

Joe M.

On 11/8/2019 11:11 PM, Mark Lassman via Groups.Io wrote:

It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the
police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law
enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very
least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their
use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis
and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I
want to know.

“Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and
anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over
encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying,
essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.


Re: P25 for Cheap

Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
 

Just speaking in reference to my little town, not everyone has a scanner (or radio receiver of the type to listen) and I would guess over all, a small percentage. A much higher percentage is the amount of law enforcement, as well as dispatchers, know that I listen and know a lot of what goes on. There have been a lot of times that I have jumped in to help them with things, missing children, trying to find cars, and on and on. They have even stopped and asked me to look out for whomever, whatever. I have been thanked so many times for helping out (including after a meeting last night). I realize that in a city things are probably much different. I'll stay small town!

Mick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe M."
To: main@Uniden.groups.io
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:30:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

> Can you point to that law? Conceptually, I agree with you 100%. But that
> concept is not supported in law anywhere I've ever heard of.
>
> I would support a 'right to listen' law that limits the steps public
> safety can take to thwart lawful monitoring. There would be limits on
> what could be encrypted (and yes, there are some things that arguable
> should be).
>
> > follows is not political, but may trigger some readers.>
>
> Those who act in darkness can act illegally. Those who act in daylight
> cannot (well, they can, but they can be caught).
>
> The argument that the majority of the public are criminals just doesn't fly.
>
> The newspapers don't report everything - ESPECIALLY these days! Several
> times I have called in tips only because I happened to know what was
> going on. The loss of those eyes and ears leads to more crime which
> leads to less desirable neighborhoods which leads to takeover by
> criminals. Isn't that something to avoid?
>
> I know of areas that encrypted their police. I know there are now many
> more guns in those areas now because the public has no idea what is
> going on anymore and they don't feel safe anymore. The bad part about
> that is that this is a knee-jerk reaction and those people often fail to
> train on those guns. This leads to a worsening of the basic problem and
> not an improvement. It also leads to selective reporting of crimes which
> means some crimes are buried.
>
> I personally believe this all stems from the macho "we can do it all
> without you" mentality that is a basic flaw in many people. It's a
> subset of the divide that is infecting the country. Public Safety does
> not have to be, and should not be, an individual effort. We are all
> responsible to keep our communities safe. All that changes with
> encryption is that the public is less informed. That is never good.
>
>
>
> Joe M.
>
> On 11/8/2019 11:11 PM, Mark Lassman via Groups.Io wrote:
> >
> > It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the
> > police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law
> > enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very
> > least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their
> > use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis
> > and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I
> > want to know.
> >
> > “Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and
> > anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over
> > encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying,
> > essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.
>
>
>
>
--


Re: P25 for Cheap

Joe M.
 

Amen. All that needs done is enforcement of the Communications
Act of 1933 that states divulging and distributing is illegal.
That used to be the golden rule of scanners.

Joe M.

On 11/8/2019 11:34 PM, Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) wrote:
I believe there have been some court challenges against encryption based
on law enforcement wanting to hide from the public what they are doing
and not staying above board with it. Broadcastify and some of the others
are probably some of the bigger reasons why agencies would go to
encryption. One time I read about a guy who had several scanners and
would make recordings and whatever else, and then type out all the
traffic as fast as he could and publishing it on a web page. Again, a
reason for agencies to encrypt. A big way to stop encrypting is to stop
abusing what you hear. It even gets into some FCC rule violations. More
than once I have seen in our local newspaper "such and such was going on
and happened according to scanner traffic".

Mick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Lassman via Groups.Io"
To: main@Uniden.groups.io
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

> I can’t see ANY logical reason why ANY normal or routine radio
traffic can’t be sent over the air as normal communications and not
scrambled or encrypted. With the possible exceptions of narcotics, gang,
vice and other “sensitive” types of operations, the great majority of
law enforcement communications does not — in my opinion — meet the
criteria that would benefit from being encrypted.
>
> It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what
the police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law
enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very
least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their
use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis
and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I
want to know.
>
> “Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects
and anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent
over encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are
saying, essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.
>
> I know that some Fire departments have encrypted and there’s
absolutely NO reason to do THAT. Especially when different departments
are going to be working together in a mutual aid situation. Fortunately,
encryption by Fire departments has not been a very large movement.
>
> > On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Thomas Rafferty Jr. wrote:
> >
> > When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to
give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch
info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the
clear.
> > From: main@Uniden.groups.io > on behalf of Jim Walls >
> > Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the
public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
> > To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io ' >
> > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> >
> > Steve T said:
> > > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that
have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.
> > > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
> >
> > Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or
computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things
like license and registration checks. What they don’t work well for is
tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out
of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most
likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can’t give any specifics
about Ohio since I am not there.
> > To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked
radio system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all
city services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all
of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another
in their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for
the past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results:
> > #1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
> > #9 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
> > #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12
cities plus one airport fire),
> > #12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
> > #20 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash
collectors for one of the cities.
> > Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125
minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy
of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly
what I would call silent.
> >
> > BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via
data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary
version). The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other
units in the area know what’s going on. I can’t tell you how many times
that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by
another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like
“I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.
Happens all the time.
> >
> >
> > Jim Walls - K6CCC ? City of Glendale
> > Information Services ? Wireless Communications
> > 120 N. Isabel St. ? Glendale, CA 91206 ? (818) 548-4804
> > jwalls@glendaleca.gov
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Untitled Document


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


Re: P25 for Cheap

Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
 

I believe there have been some court challenges against encryption based on law enforcement wanting to hide from the public what they are doing and not staying above board with it. Broadcastify and some of the others are probably some of the bigger reasons why agencies would go to encryption. One time I read about a guy who had several scanners and would make recordings and whatever else, and then type out all the traffic as fast as he could and publishing it on a web page. Again, a reason for agencies to encrypt. A big way to stop encrypting is to stop abusing what you hear. It even gets into some FCC rule violations. More than once I have seen in our local newspaper "such and such was going on and happened according to scanner traffic".

Mick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Lassman via Groups.Io"
To: main@Uniden.groups.io
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

> I can’t see ANY logical reason why ANY normal or routine radio traffic can’t be sent over the air as normal communications and not scrambled or encrypted. With the possible exceptions of narcotics, gang, vice and other “sensitive” types of operations, the great majority of law enforcement communications does not — in my opinion — meet the criteria that would benefit from being encrypted.
>
> It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I want to know.
>
> “Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying, essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.
>
> I know that some Fire departments have encrypted and there’s absolutely NO reason to do THAT. Especially when different departments are going to be working together in a mutual aid situation. Fortunately, encryption by Fire departments has not been a very large movement.
>
> > On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Thomas Rafferty Jr. wrote:
> >
> > When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the clear.
> > From: main@Uniden.groups.io > on behalf of Jim Walls >
> > Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
> > To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io ' >
> > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> >
> > Steve T said:
> > > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.
> > > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
> >
> > Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks. What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
> > To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results:
> > #1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
> > #9 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
> > #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),
> > #12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
> > #20 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.
> > Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly what I would call silent.
> >
> > BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version). The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other units in the area know what’s going on. I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”. Happens all the time.
> >
> >
> > Jim Walls - K6CCC ? City of Glendale
> > Information Services ? Wireless Communications
> > 120 N. Isabel St. ? Glendale, CA 91206 ? (818) 548-4804
> > jwalls@...
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--


Re: P25 for Cheap

Joe M.
 

If texting while driving is illegal, it should be illegal for everyone.

My state has exemptions for 'certain people'. Well, is it dangerous or not? If it is, how can 'certain people' be safe?

I have a county (several, in fact) in my area that went from a voice-dispatch to text dispatch. Think about that a minute. If you are driving, they are forcing you to read texts to see what the call is.
Why? Job security? (yea - think about that last question a little, too)

'nuff said.

Joe M.

On 11/8/2019 11:29 PM, Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) wrote:
Do a search and look up how many crashes, even people killed, by law
enforcement looking at computer terminals while driving. With some
agencies, if you get caught looking at your terminal while driving, it
is terminal for your job! On the other hand, information can be passed
by radio much safer.

Mick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Rafferty Jr."
To: "main@Uniden.groups.io"
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 07:26:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

> When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to
give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch
info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the
clear.
> ________________________________
> From: main@Uniden.groups.io on behalf of Jim Walls
> Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the
public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
> To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io'
> Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
>
>
> Steve T said:
>
> > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have
went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.
>
> > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
>
>
>
> Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or
computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things
like license and registration checks. What they don¡¦t work well for is
tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out
of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most
likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can¡¦t give any
specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
>
> To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio
system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all city
services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all of
the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in
their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the
past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results:
>
> #1 ¡V #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
>
> #9 was a police tac talkgroup,
>
> #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
>
> #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities
plus one airport fire),
>
> #12 ¡V #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
>
> #20 was a police tac talkgroup,
>
> #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup ¡V it was trash
collectors for one of the cities.
>
> Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125
minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy
of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly
what I would call silent.
>
>
>
> BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data
terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).
The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other units in the
area know what¡¦s going on. I can¡¦t tell you how many times that I
heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit
(who is closer, but already on a call) say something like ¡§I¡¦ll be
clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street¡¨. Happens all
the time.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Walls - K6CCC ¡´ City of Glendale
>
> Information Services ¡´ Wireless Communications
>
> 120 N. Isabel St. ¡´ Glendale, CA 91206 ¡´ (818) 548-4804
>
> jwalls@glendaleca.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Untitled Document


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


Re: P25 for Cheap

Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
 

Do a search and look up how many crashes, even people killed, by law enforcement looking at computer terminals while driving. With some agencies, if you get caught looking at your terminal while driving, it is terminal for your job! On the other hand, information can be passed by radio much safer.

Mick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Rafferty Jr."
To: "main@Uniden.groups.io"
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 07:26:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

> When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the clear.
> ________________________________
> From: main@Uniden.groups.io on behalf of Jim Walls
> Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
> To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io'
> Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
>
>
> Steve T said:
>
> > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.
>
> > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
>
>
>
> Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks. What they don¡¦t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can¡¦t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
>
> To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results:
>
> #1 ¡V #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
>
> #9 was a police tac talkgroup,
>
> #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
>
> #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),
>
> #12 ¡V #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
>
> #20 was a police tac talkgroup,
>
> #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup ¡V it was trash collectors for one of the cities.
>
> Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly what I would call silent.
>
>
>
> BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version). The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other units in the area know what¡¦s going on. I can¡¦t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like ¡§I¡¦ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street¡¨. Happens all the time.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Walls - K6CCC ¡´ City of Glendale
>
> Information Services ¡´ Wireless Communications
>
> 120 N. Isabel St. ¡´ Glendale, CA 91206 ¡´ (818) 548-4804
>
> jwalls@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--


Re: P25 for Cheap

Joe M.
 

Can you point to that law? Conceptually, I agree with you 100%. But that concept is not supported in law anywhere I've ever heard of.

I would support a 'right to listen' law that limits the steps public safety can take to thwart lawful monitoring. There would be limits on what could be encrypted (and yes, there are some things that arguable should be).

<soapbox mode on - if you are easily offended stop reading now. What follows is not political, but may trigger some readers.>

Those who act in darkness can act illegally. Those who act in daylight cannot (well, they can, but they can be caught).

The argument that the majority of the public are criminals just doesn't fly.

The newspapers don't report everything - ESPECIALLY these days! Several times I have called in tips only because I happened to know what was going on. The loss of those eyes and ears leads to more crime which leads to less desirable neighborhoods which leads to takeover by criminals. Isn't that something to avoid?

I know of areas that encrypted their police. I know there are now many more guns in those areas now because the public has no idea what is going on anymore and they don't feel safe anymore. The bad part about that is that this is a knee-jerk reaction and those people often fail to train on those guns. This leads to a worsening of the basic problem and not an improvement. It also leads to selective reporting of crimes which means some crimes are buried.

I personally believe this all stems from the macho "we can do it all without you" mentality that is a basic flaw in many people. It's a subset of the divide that is infecting the country. Public Safety does not have to be, and should not be, an individual effort. We are all responsible to keep our communities safe. All that changes with encryption is that the public is less informed. That is never good.

<soapbox mode off>

Joe M.

On 11/8/2019 11:11 PM, Mark Lassman via Groups.Io wrote:

It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the
police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law
enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very
least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their
use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis
and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I
want to know.

“Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and
anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over
encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying,
essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.


Re: P25 for Cheap

Mark Lassman
 

I can’t see ANY logical reason why ANY normal or routine radio traffic can’t be sent over the air as normal communications and not scrambled or encrypted. With the possible exceptions of narcotics, gang, vice and other “sensitive” types of operations, the great majority of law enforcement communications does not — in my opinion — meet the criteria that would benefit from being encrypted. 

It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I want to know.

“Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying, essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.

I know that some Fire departments have encrypted and there’s absolutely NO reason to do THAT. Especially when different departments are going to be working together in a mutual aid situation. Fortunately, encryption by Fire departments has not been a very large movement.

On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Thomas Rafferty Jr. <trafferty936@...> wrote:

When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch info that shouldn't be heard by the public.  Everything else was in the clear.

From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Walls <jwalls@...>
Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io' <main@Uniden.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
 
Steve T said:
> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 
> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:
#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
#9 was a police tac talkgroup,
#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),
#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
#20 was a police tac talkgroup,
#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.
Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.

 

BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.

 

 

Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale
Information Services  Wireless Communications
120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206  (818) 548-4804

 



Re: P25 for Cheap

Jim Adams
 

Encryption is next and good luck on listening to that

On Friday, November 8, 2019, 10:19:10 AM PST, Gigu chan <rudebwai@...> wrote:


    I’m sure that Ohio isn’t the only one..  pretty soon  I’ll have to switch Hobbies..  or Play more Ham radio

 

From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Tarbert
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:16
To: main@uniden.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

 

There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.  Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

 

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:34 PM neil kelly <windbrook@...> wrote:

Hi

The chances anywhere in the world to listen to the things you want to is about over. You would have more luck winning the lottery.

Neil john


Re: P25 for Cheap

Thomas Rafferty Jr.
 

When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch info that shouldn't be heard by the public.  Everything else was in the clear.


From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Walls <jwalls@...>
Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io' <main@Uniden.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
 

Steve T said:

> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 

> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.

To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:

#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),

#9 was a police tac talkgroup,

#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,

#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),

#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,

#20 was a police tac talkgroup,

#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.

Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.

 

BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.

 

 

Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale

Information Services  Wireless Communications

120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-4804

jwalls@...

 


Re: P25 for Cheap

Don Curtis <Don.Curtis@...>
 

Agree... I was referring to law enforcement not fire.  In some places, ambulances are also encrypted for patient privacy.  Not a lot yet, but it seems to be a growing concern. 

Don

On November 8, 2019 12:42:57 PM "Timothy Jackson via Groups.Io" <tmjackso@...> wrote:

Here in Northern Illinois our local police department (Crystal Lake)  just migrated from analog to the Illiinois Starcom21 trunked P25 system and encrypted the dispatch channel, whereas neighboring cities are not encrypted.  Interestingly, the McHenry County Sheriff (which migrated to Starcom21 long ago) was encyrpted but went clear a little over a year ago. All the TAC channels are encrypted. State police dispatch are all unencypted (but quite boring - traffic stops) and like most places, non law-enforcement (fire, EMS, etc) are not encrypted. 

Seems to be pretty common these days. 

Tim.

On Nov 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Don Curtis <Don.Curtis@...> wrote:

No idea about California, but in Colorado, the larger metro areas are going 100% encrypted. 

The news gathering/reporting stations can buy receivers from the agency's that allow them to monitor only routine traffic.  No TAC or special channels. 

Don

On November 8, 2019 12:13:28 PM "Jim Walls" <jwalls@...> wrote:

Steve T said:
> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 
> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
 
Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:
#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
#9 was a police tac talkgroup,
#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),
#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
#20 was a police tac talkgroup,
#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.
Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.
 
BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.
 
 
Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale
Information Services  Wireless Communications
120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206  (818) 548-4804
 




Re: P25 for Cheap

Timothy Jackson
 

Here in Northern Illinois our local police department (Crystal Lake)  just migrated from analog to the Illiinois Starcom21 trunked P25 system and encrypted the dispatch channel, whereas neighboring cities are not encrypted.  Interestingly, the McHenry County Sheriff (which migrated to Starcom21 long ago) was encyrpted but went clear a little over a year ago. All the TAC channels are encrypted. State police dispatch are all unencypted (but quite boring - traffic stops) and like most places, non law-enforcement (fire, EMS, etc) are not encrypted. 

Seems to be pretty common these days. 

Tim.

On Nov 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Don Curtis <Don.Curtis@...> wrote:

No idea about California, but in Colorado, the larger metro areas are going 100% encrypted. 

The news gathering/reporting stations can buy receivers from the agency's that allow them to monitor only routine traffic.  No TAC or special channels. 

Don

On November 8, 2019 12:13:28 PM "Jim Walls" <jwalls@...> wrote:

Steve T said:
> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 
> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
 
Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:
#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
#9 was a police tac talkgroup,
#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),
#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
#20 was a police tac talkgroup,
#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.
Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.
 
BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.
 
 
Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale
Information Services  Wireless Communications
120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206  (818) 548-4804
 



Re: P25 for Cheap

Don Curtis <Don.Curtis@...>
 

No idea about California, but in Colorado, the larger metro areas are going 100% encrypted. 

The news gathering/reporting stations can buy receivers from the agency's that allow them to monitor only routine traffic.  No TAC or special channels. 

Don

On November 8, 2019 12:13:28 PM "Jim Walls" <jwalls@...> wrote:

Steve T said:

> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 

> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.

To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:

#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),

#9 was a police tac talkgroup,

#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,

#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),

#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,

#20 was a police tac talkgroup,

#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.

Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.

 

BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.

 

 

Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale

Information Services  Wireless Communications

120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-4804

jwalls@...

 



Re: P25 for Cheap

Marty Toomajian
 

The point is that the software is cheap or free so the cost is the cheapest software defined receiver.  Apparently there is at least one that is very inexpensive.  

See the first post in the thread. 

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 1:52 PM john wayne thompson via Groups.Io <thompsonjohnwayne=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
How cheap


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM, Gigu chan
<rudebwai@...> wrote:

    I’m sure that Ohio isn’t the only one..  pretty soon  I’ll have to switch Hobbies..  or Play more Ham radio

 

From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Tarbert
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:16
To: main@uniden.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

 

There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.  Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

 

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:34 PM neil kelly <windbrook@...> wrote:

Hi

The chances anywhere in the world to listen to the things you want to is about over. You would have more luck winning the lottery.

Neil john


Re: P25 for Cheap

Jim Walls
 

Steve T said:

> There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. 

> Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

Yes, and no.  Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles.  They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks.  What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle.  If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems.  I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.

To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities.  Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety.  Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles.  I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours.  Here is a summary of the results:

#1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),

#9 was a police tac talkgroup,

#10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,

#11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),

#12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,

#20 was a police tac talkgroup,

#21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.

Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day).  So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24.  Hardly what I would call silent.

 

BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version).  The reason for this is situational awareness,  It lets other units in the area know what’s going on.  I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”.  Happens all the time.

 

 

Jim Walls - K6CCC  City of Glendale

Information Services  Wireless Communications

120 N. Isabel St.  Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-4804

jwalls@...

 


Re: P25 for Cheap

john wayne thompson
 

How cheap


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM, Gigu chan
<rudebwai@...> wrote:

    I’m sure that Ohio isn’t the only one..  pretty soon  I’ll have to switch Hobbies..  or Play more Ham radio

 

From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Tarbert
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:16
To: main@uniden.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap

 

There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.  Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.

 

 

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:34 PM neil kelly <windbrook@...> wrote:

Hi

The chances anywhere in the world to listen to the things you want to is about over. You would have more luck winning the lottery.

Neil john

1541 - 1560 of 1627