RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Colorado Radio Discussion Forum

Colorado Radio Discussion Forum Forum for discussing Radio Information in the State of Colorado.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-20-2014, 2:36 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: N. Colorado
Posts: 60
Default Longmont PD Re-programming

Heard a lot of radios being brought in to be re-programmed. Anybody know what up with that? Also picking up a lot of Boulder PD or SO dispatch on TG 9100 today.

Mark
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-20-2014, 5:20 PM
scanlist's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greeley, CO
Posts: 1,916
Default

Longmont reprogramming is rumored to involve a word that begins with the letter "E".

9100 BC LAW-1 has been simulcasting S.O. GREEN for several months as Erie has been testing with DTRS radios.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-21-2014, 12:09 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Gilcrest, CO
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scanlist View Post
Longmont reprogramming is rumored to involve a word that begins with the letter "E".
Encryption??
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-21-2014, 8:02 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: N. Colorado
Posts: 60
Default

Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-21-2014, 9:27 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Denver-Metro
Posts: 774
Default

For some time Longmont has used an encrypted "Data" channel, so clearances are already encrypted along with a lot of other traffic. Hopefully they will leave up their VHF Simulcast...lol
__________________
"I am NOT a hacker and I have never, ever modified any device via JTAG or serial and I only use officially approved OEM connectors..."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-21-2014, 1:02 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,175
Default

I wonder if a Golden Goose sounds any different than a Canadian Goose when it hits the deck after being killed?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-21-2014, 9:48 PM
ecanderson's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 418
Default

Ugh. Now there's a conversation I wouldn't want to have with Butler!
__________________
WinRadio 1550, Alinco DJ X2/TE, Pro-2096, Pro-197, BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2014, 10:36 PM
ecanderson's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 418
Default LPD Encryption - Partial

Finally got a read on this one.

First to define what Longmont PD has in mind: You can expect to see all talkgroups with the exception of 'Channel 1' (9515) to be encrypted. AFAIK, that will INCLUDE 'Channel 2' (9516), though I cannot confirm this. Though the City moves at a glacial pace on many things, I'd expect this to happen sooner rather than later.

Now to the backstory:

Some have lobbied to encrypt 9515 as well. The primary reason for this is the peculiar way Longmont handles 'hot' events. All other agencies with which I've been familiar will take a serious or sensitive incident/event that develops on the primary dispatch channel to a secondary or tac channel, leaving normal traffic to the primary channel. Longmont is quite different in that regard. If a situation begins to develop on Channel 1, they will retain the escalating situation exclusively on Channel 1 (aka Code 3) and move all normal traffic to Channel 2. For that reason, some at LPD would prefer that Channel 1 also be encrypted. So far, management has resisted this. However, one wonders if they will also then change their policy regarding how they handle emerging situations and whether, like every other agency with which I am familiar, they will start to move the traffic for such things to an optional channel, leaving the primary dispatch channel for regular business.

Another issue (that it turns out they were aware of) has been the issue of encryption (or should I say, frequent lack of it) on TAC1, and even when TAC1 DTRS is encrypted, the clear signal being available on 151.22 VHF. Don't expect to see that last, either.
__________________
WinRadio 1550, Alinco DJ X2/TE, Pro-2096, Pro-197, BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2014, 12:19 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Longmont, CO
Posts: 271
Default

It is already enough of a challenge for Longmont PD to work with other agencies like the Boulder Sheriffs Department, and Longmont Emergency Unit (Volunteer Organization that is frequently called upon to help out, and even staffs its station on weekends) because of the change to DTRS. That's why they have the conventional patch, and it does help, but for events (such as parades, or call outs involving the for-mentioned agencies) it seems to be a communication nightmare. I certainly hope they consider all of this. I am glad they have kept the main dispatch channel in the clear, not only for assistance from other agencies, but for accountability to their "policing in partnership with the people" philosophy.
__________________
Nathan KD0OEO MNN-128
Pro-106, Pro-96, Pro-95
Austin Spectra mobile antenna
Yaesu FT60-R, Kenwood TM-71A
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2014, 9:36 AM
ecanderson's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 418
Default

What's left will be the MAC channel comms and VHF Channel 1 to keep the two connected. However, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Boulder does with DTRS on their end as an adjunct to their regular VHF comms. The mandated 2012 interop should still be driving some changes there.

Boulder was and continues to be a challenge, and is certainly being kept in mind as things move forward. Most of the folks appreciate the reason that Boulder still operates a lot of VHF gear, though I think some in Longmont wish they'd move to DTRS for the eastern part of Boulder County that isn't so line-of-sight challenged, but dual band radios are $$$. Keeping Channel 1 VHF and DTRS patched and clear certainly provides a communications path there.

There are those officers who understandably aren't interested in 'policing in partnership' when it means that knowledge of their movement is being compromised - and there are legitimate stories of how this really has occurred - but I blame that on the City's unusual 'Code 3' policy that keeps those comms on Channel 1. As I say, they may need to rethink that. Granted, calling a Code 3 means no one has to take the 2 seconds to change channels (one of the arguments in favor of Code 3), but hey...
__________________
WinRadio 1550, Alinco DJ X2/TE, Pro-2096, Pro-197, BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2014, 9:53 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Castle Rock, Co.
Posts: 744
Default

I have also found that most departments I listen to leave " Emergent " traffic or incident on the original channel This is a good practice, If you are in the confusion of multiple units or multiple agencies running around a town at high speed in cars or on foot I don't think you want officers messing around with communications. If you know you are then going to set on a person or house for some time then you have time to set up a ops channel. This is why many are asking for delayed comms on Broadcastify. Please people, I am not trying to set this up for a encryption or delay debate.
__________________
Pro-2096
Pro-106
(3)Pro-197
BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2014, 10:01 AM
ecanderson's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 418
Default

Understood, and we don't want to go there if we don't want the entire discussion shut down by the moderator(s). So let's agree (for the sake of the continuation of the thread) that the discussion at the moment isn't specifically about encryption, but rather, the Code 3 practices that may cause issues for an unencrypted channel.

I wasn't all that specific about what I meant when I said 'serious or sensitive'. I referred to situations where there's an entire command post set-up that has resulted from an incident. I appreciate that no one wants to fiddle with a radio during a car chase. However, this is a much more common practice in Longmont than I've seen elsewhere.

More in a moment...
__________________
WinRadio 1550, Alinco DJ X2/TE, Pro-2096, Pro-197, BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2014, 10:08 AM
ecanderson's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 418
Default

Another argument against leaving Channel 1 in the clear has been the nature of some of the personal information that is moved on that channel. Most of the Code 2 traffic is of a pretty mundane nature (mostly names and birth dates), but on occasion, the level of detail goes a bit beyond that. There are those who prefer not to use the PDTs and instead keep their attention focused on a subject or subject vehicle and call in a Code 2 to get their information. One could easily argue that that kind of traffic should be being passed on Data (TG 9517) which is always encrypted, but that's just not how it works here. I'm not close enough to the situation to understand why that is the case.
__________________
WinRadio 1550, Alinco DJ X2/TE, Pro-2096, Pro-197, BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2014, 3:32 PM
Spitfire8520's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 599
Default

I wouldn't say that the behavior of leaving an "in progress" event is all that unusual as well as sensitive information being transmitted in the clear. Some agencies in the southern Denver Metro area will routinely hold a channel to incident traffic only for extended periods of time, even keeping the channel allocated while a command structure has been setup for an incident. Command for some of these incidents often do utilize additional talkgroups for additional coordination, but retain the primary dispatch as a tactical channel for long periods of time to coordinate movements of officers.

As for running information, a lot of agencies run and transmit information on unencrypted channels routinely. Some agencies don't have a dedicated data channel so will run information on primary dispatch. Many agencies in the area that have a data channel have generally left them in the clear. Most of the time the data channels are utilized to keep the already busy primary dispatch clear of long winded information, which I believe some people who monitor appreciate not having to listen to license information all day long.

I personally believe Longmont PD's radio usage practices does not differ all that much from some of the other agencies in Colorado. What does differ between other agencies is that Longmont has a peculiar behavior of how they deploy encryption. Then again, Longmont is pretty close to Fort Collins...
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2014, 12:33 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 171
Default

Just another agency bringing up the usual bla bla to justify encryption.

Surveillance and and SWAT have a good reason. Most everything else is overblown with non-specific reasons. The real reason is probably they want to hide things from the media and public because they hate being second guessed.

Most everyone is smart enough to keep the REAL sensitive information off the radio and on cell phones.

Last edited by Kevin_N; 06-09-2014 at 1:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
        
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2014, 8:33 AM
ecanderson's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 418
Default

I think it's primarily a convenience thing. While some will say "Send it to my Nextel" (not that they've had Nextel phones in quite a while), others prefer not to be bothered with using multiple methods of communication and believe that picking up the microphone should be all that's necessary to do the job.
__________________
WinRadio 1550, Alinco DJ X2/TE, Pro-2096, Pro-197, BCD396XT
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions