R.R. Front Page Story On Morgan County

[scanlist]

Gee this suddenly fell off the RR front page as soon as I posted a msg on it this morning.

A request from tow provider Bill Holmes for the Morgan County Communications Center Board to purchase an 800 MHz radio for him so he could listen to the communication between agencies was denied Tuesday.

At the board's meeting, Larry Mueller, chair of the board and Log Lane Village police chief, made the motion to deny the request and the board supported it. "We have a closed net," Mueller said. "If we granted the request, we would lose the ability to have that closed net."

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why he was rejected.

And there is still this perception that the DTRS system is totally secure.

So which block does Morgan County get on DTRS?

Phil.

[jimmnn]

Originally Posted by scanlist

Gee this suddenly fell off the RR front page as soon as I posted a msg on it this morning.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why he was rejected.

And there is still this perception that the DTRS system is totally secure.

So which block does Morgan County get on DTRS?

Phil.

We have heard 9026 and 9027 active with Morgan County traffic and also last night 9020 popped up as Phillips County, Haxtun Ambulance.

Jim<

[jimmnn]

Link to the entire story also, thanks Phil.

http://tinyurl.com/bdqw3

Jim<

[DTRS_Master]

Gee this suddenly fell off the RR front page as soon as I posted a msg on it this morning.

I can see why. This story does not have any sort of wide area significance or interest like the other stories that are posted on the RR front page do. To get right down to it, this is a miniscule local squabble. It's much better to have it discussed here in the Colorado forum, so thanks for bringing the discussion to here.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why he was rejected.

I'm not a rocket scientist (I am studying to be one though ) so please explain why. It sounds like they don't want every agency under the sun talking on their channels. The owner of the channel has the right to do that, and I think that it's perfectly reasonable. That's why there are MAC channels. Doing this will also keep others from bringing their talk group up on a site that is 60 miles away. I recall that we don't like that happening, right? They can get a scanner and listen to them all day long just like the rest of us.

And there is still this perception that the DTRS system is totally secure.

I don't think that this is the case. If it is, I would be anxious for you to show me where it has been said.

If you read the CCNC bylaws (they're online, folks - read them like I did and get enlightened!), in the case that a user that has not been granted access to a channel uses that channel, they will get their access to the system completely yanked. CCNC bylaws also state that nobody will program channels into the radios unless they have written permission from the agency that owns the channel to program it. I don't think that anyone will risk having his or her participation in DTRS terminated over this sort of thing. I think that the CCNC bylaws' goal regarding this topic is that they look to keep the system secure from "within".

While it's true that being able to talk and listen to an agencies' primary dispatch channel is good for interoperability, one must remember that it is not the only means for interoperability. Users should be able to control access to their channels. MAC channels will allow the interoperability.

[jimmnn]

Welcome back Master, hope you enjoyed the vacation.

Jim<

[jimmnn]

DTRS_Master have you read the entire article?

"so he could listen to the communication between agencies was denied Tuesday"

appears all this tow truck operator wanted to do was monitor the system, discussion did not involve him having a radio programmed to transmit on the DTRS system.

Jim< "DTRS_Junior"

[DTRS_Master]

Originally Posted by jimmnn

appears all this tow truck operator wanted to do was monitor the system, discussion did not involve him having a radio programmed to transmit on the DTRS system.

From a technical standpoint, I would like for you to tell me how this can be accomplished.

Bottom line: it can't.

He needs to get a scanner. Period.

Jim< "DTRS_Junior"

You really ought to consider the name change. It would be cool

Vacation - I wish. I was in Oslo, Norway last week working on a project. ugh...

[mpg0515]

[QUOTE=DTRS_Master]From a technical standpoint, I would like for you to tell me how this can be accomplished.

Bottom line: it can't.

He needs to get a scanner. Period.

Radios approved by the CCNC can be programmed to MONITOR ONLY. This is why there are media agencies such as the Fort Collins Coloradoan that have this ability.

What do you mean technical standpoint? There is nothing technical about it. Any approved person(s) can buy a "DTRS radio" i.e Motorola XTS 5000, 3000 etc. and once approved can have it programmed.

[Thayne]

I am sure there must be some perception out that way that it is unmonitorable.

Last week when I was out there we stopped for lunch in a place called "Mom's cafe" in Otis.
Some cop came in and freaked a little bit when he heard the PRO-96 I had squawk. I don't know who he was with, but he had a unmarked gray CVPI. I was wary of his intentions but once he found out we were just doing a job that day he was nice. I explained to him that it was all in the programming as to what you could hear. The only things I heard on DTRS out there was CSP and some ambulance talking to the hosp in Greeley. Of course, I could only hear 3 small sites out there so I had it in open mode.
I did capture about 15 PL tones on VHF/UHF from Morgan, Washington, & Yuma counties that are not listed in the DB. If anyone is interested I will post them--

[logitec]

I think what she meant was that, in order for the Mot. radio to work right, it must affiliate, which is transmitting. It makes sense to not have extra radios affiliating that you don't really need. It causes capacity problems when they affiliate on sites out of the main usage area all the time. Who knows where a tow driver may go with his radio.

I'm not an advocate of closed systems. I think public safety should be open to monitoring (except when it puts people in true danger). But, in this case, a scanner is the way to go.

[jimmnn]

Originally Posted by logitec

I think what she meant was that, in order for the Mot. radio to work right, it must affiliate, which is transmitting. It makes sense to not have extra radios affiliating that you don't really need. It causes capacity problems when they affiliate on sites out of the main usage area all the time. Who knows where a tow driver may go with his radio.

I'm not an advocate of closed systems. I think public safety should be open to monitoring (except when it puts people in true danger). But, in this case, a scanner is the way to go.

Does a Motorola radio purchased for $3,000 and approved to be programmed by the CCNC muck mucks have to affliate to receive only, transmit being disabled?

I don't believe so we have three commercial grade radios programmed on the Denver system and programmed by the radio shop with transmit disabled and they do not affliate or even show on the screen of users on the system.

Jim<

[jimmnn]

[I did capture about 15 PL tones on VHF/UHF from Morgan, Washington, & Yuma counties that are not listed in the DB. If anyone is interested I will post them--[/QUOTE]

Always interested you should at least submit them to the RR database for updating.

Jim<

[logitec]

Originally Posted by jimmnn

Does a Motorola radio purchased for $3,000 and approved to be programmed by the CCNC muck mucks have to affliate to receive only, transmit being disabled?

I don't believe so we have three commercial grade radios programmed on the Denver system and programmed by the radio shop with transmit disabled and they do not affliate or even show on the screen of users on the system.

Jim<

Yes they do. When Mot. went to the 9600 bps control channel (true APCO 25 trunking), they made it so that, IN THE NORMAL MODE, the radio must affiliate before it will RX anything. On the 3600 bps CC (only) equipped radios, this was not the case.

With EDACS, it can be done either way (they call it Auto Login), but the radios will RX without TX.

[firescannerbob]

Originally Posted by logitec

Yes they do. When Mot. went to the 9600 bps control channel (true APCO 25 trunking), they made it so that, IN THE NORMAL MODE, the radio must affiliate before it will RX anything. On the 3600 bps CC (only) equipped radios, this was not the case.

Not true. Its an option, and on the Colorado system it's not enabled.

[scanlist]

Yeah the tow truck guy needs to find a real radio shack. Though I think he was hoping for a free radio. Kinda like me wishing Greeley would hand me a 5K with the crypto key. It ain't gonna happen.

True P25 (9600bps) moto gear is designed to affiliate as a security precaution to prevent unauthorized system usage/access. It is understood that was also written into the P25 standard as well.

A little bit of history: Media radios that were programmed for access to Lakewood were configured to affiliate when Lakewood was using aegis digital for the short duration when they first moved to their EDACS system. Let's say that it was expensive for the few that bought aegis digital radios only for Lakewood to drop digital within a month.

Phil.

[logitec]

Originally Posted by firescannerbob

Not true. Its an option, and on the Colorado system it's not enabled.

What's the name of the option???

[logitec]

BTW,

Speaking of options. The option to affiliate on PTT only (which is the only other setting for Smartzone radios) instead of on power up/power down, channel change, site change, and coming back into service, in radio programming software goes away when you have this option in the Flashcode of the radio:

Q361/G361 Digital APCO-25 Trunking (9600kb Control)

So I don't see how that would be a system setting.

[Troop]

sometimes tow operators like to have that information so that they are "first" there..thinking that maybe they'll get used...When we were on VHF we ran into that problem everynow and then, but we use a strict rotation and tell the "vultures" to go away...not saying that's why he wanted one, but i've got feelings on that one

[firescannerbob]

Originally Posted by logitec

What's the name of the option???

Not sure it's got a "name". It's either enabled or not. Here, it's not.

[logitec]

Well that explains that.