Does LAPD have any plans to phase out P25?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GrandpaFrank

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
152
With all the new changes going on with regards to encryption, does anyone know if the Los Angeles Police Department has any plans to switch from their current P25 system in the near future? From what I've read, Riverside County will no longer be monitor-able. Did I read that right? What do the people do who want to monitor such frequencies? Is it flat out illegal? Or does in mean spending alot of money to buy a capable scanner?

I am not looking forward to the day when i have to watch the news to find out why an entire city block was taped off for hours.

Thanks
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Location
Lansing, MI
Your input to this thread is very valuable, thanks...
 

K6CDO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
1,265
Location
Hanover Co. VA
With all the new changes going on with regards to encryption, does anyone know if the Los Angeles Police Department has any plans to switch from their current P25 system in the near future? From what I've read, Riverside County will no longer be monitor-able. Did I read that right? What do the people do who want to monitor such frequencies? Is it flat out illegal? Or does in mean spending alot of money to buy a capable scanner?

I am not looking forward to the day when i have to watch the news to find out why an entire city block was taped off for hours.

Thanks

The reason that the Riverside system will not be easily monitored is the technology used (P25 Phase 2). Just as when P16 trunking (SmartNet, EDACS) first came out in the early 1990s, the scanner manufacturers had to engineer how to decode the data stream to track where the transmissions were being made. Sooner or later the scanner manufacturers will catch up.

Monitoring a P25 Phase 2 system is not illegal (decrypting an encrypted voice or mobile data transmission is).

As far as LAPD's P25 system, the whole Los Angeles region is working on plans to replace the systems now in use, due to the Debt Relief Act of 2012 which mandates that all systems in the 470-512 MHz range move out of that spectrum by 2021. Until the new (replacement) spectrum is identified, technology plans are on hold.
 

2wayfreq

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
470
Location
Arizona
They are eventually going from P25 T-Band with single channels, to ASTRO-25 Phase 2 (2 Time Slot) Trunking. Most likely, They could have something like the APX7000 U/7/8 Models where either UHF conventional mode will be utilized first. Then, they could "Trunk" thier existing licenses (Not too likely) or just wait, drop the UHF and jump to 700Mhz Phase 2. Oh, and YES they will have the option of Software based ADP or a bit more pricey AES 256 Bit Encryption.
 

KB6KGX

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
179
Location
Simi Valley, CA
What do the people do who want to monitor such frequencies? Is it flat out illegal? Or does in mean spending alot of money to buy a capable scanner?/QUOTE]

Not directed at you, specifically, but there may be a general confusion between “digital” and “encrypted”. No, it is NOT illegal to monitor any radio signal. Analog, digital OR encrypted. The Communications Act of 1934 gives us that right, to listen to any radio or television signal that is broadcast “over the air”. The problem is not that it is illegal to monitor encrypted transmissions, per se, but it is illegal to manufacture and/or possess a radio that is capable of receiving them. Unless, of course, you are one of those groups, such as law enforcement, etc., and you ARE authorized to use them.

I know many of us WOULD buy a scanner that could decode “encrypted” or “scrambled” signals, even if the scanner costs 3x what a “normal” scanner would. But it’s illegal to make them, therefore possessing one is, obviously, impossible.
 

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,204
I think the OP's question from two years ago was answered in Post #9. No sense keeping this open for some encryption debate/discussion.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top