• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Encryption testing on Wyo-Link today

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spud

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
153
Location
Fort Collins, CO
More info

lockoutspecialist2 said:
Frequencies only FYI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Decoded data from Cheyenne South tower,
located 11 miles south of Cheyenne near US Hwy 85

Callsign: WQCR772
System ID: 1A4
Tower: 101
Base: 150.99250
Spacing: 0.00250
BW: 0.01250
TX Offset: 4.500

Primary control: 154.07000
Alt. control: 155.4300 (ch 02-1775)

connected to Albin tower, located 4 miles north of Albin.

no further data decoded this afternoon.

73,

Spud
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
178
I heard, was that annoying robotic sound off & on between 14:30 & 15:00. I think testing could not understand. It was off the Cheyenne south tower.
 

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,327
Location
Colorado
Spud, be sure and post that to Wyoming Forum also great info.

Jim<
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
178
Spud said:
Decoded data from Cheyenne South tower,
located 11 miles south of Cheyenne near US Hwy 85

Callsign: WQCR772
System ID: 1A4
Tower: 101
Base: 150.99250
Spacing: 0.00250
BW: 0.01250
TX Offset: 4.500

Primary control: 154.07000
Alt. control: 155.4300 (ch 02-1775)

connected to Albin tower, located 4 miles north of Albin.

no further data decoded this afternoon.

73,

Spud
Are the the base 150.9925 spacing 0.0125 offset 4.5 the same for the bc296 ? ARC program won't accept.
 
Last edited:

Spud

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
153
Location
Fort Collins, CO
Cheyenne South tower data

lockoutspecialist2 said:
Are the the base 150.9925 spacing 0.0125 offset 4.5 the same for the bc296 ? ARC program won't accept.
The info that I posted was received using a Pro-96 and the Pro96Com application.
It is what was displayed on several screens of the program.

I am not familiar with the BC296, therefore I cannot provide that answer.
Perhaps someone else in the group will post on this.

I will continue to monitor and update any further info that is received.


73,

Spud
 

scanlist

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,029
Location
Greeley, CO
Spud said:
The info that I posted was received using a Pro-96 and the Pro96Com application.
Interesting still getting no information off of 154.070 like it has been for the past year. Even with 80% decode.

I am not familiar with the BC296, therefore I cannot provide that answer.
Perhaps someone else in the group will post on this.
BC296, 796, 396 and 996 should decode the table data off the control channel with no need to enter anything. Provided there is actual control channel data present.

Funny all I get is LNK on the 296, 396 and 796. No data to decode or track at this point.

Phil.
 

scanlist

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,029
Location
Greeley, CO
Still no site data off of 154.070 at the S. Greeley Highway site as of this post.

If this system is in fact operational does this mean that the control channels are encrypted?

Phil.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
scanlist said:
Still no site data off of 154.070 at the S. Greeley Highway site as of this post.

If this system is in fact operational does this mean that the control channels are encrypted?

Phil.

I doubt it. The way I understand the encryption of the control channel in the P25 standard is that individual messages can be "protected." I suppose you could protect them all, but I haven't heard of this feature even being implemented yet by a manufacturer. They seem to stick with the voice side of things for the encryption.

The Pro96Com program will show if a message on the control channel is protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top