Problems with RS Triple Trunk Trackers.

[skipgoulet]

I was just in the Radio Shack at the mall in Odessa,TX over the weekend, and they're telling me that all their Triple Trackers and Pro2096s are coming back because the trunks aren't working. I have two Pro2051s. The one I keep in the house stays on all the time,but the mobile won't work on the trunks if the weather is a bit cold or even cool. Anyone with any ideas on what may be wrong? RS's technical people are telling the stores that there's nothing wrong with their radios, but the guy I talked to said they've had 17 out of 17 radios come back in the past week. Something's wrong somewhere.

 

[tomtefe]

It all has to do with the Odessa TRS signal strength. Be sure to use a 800 mhz antenna on your handheld or your base and you should be in good shape. The location of the transmitter in Odessa (Dixie and Interstate 20) leaves something to be desired unless you are within 2 miles of downtown Odessa.:roll:

 

[SouthSoundScanner]

I'd say that it's just 17 people who don't know how to program a scanner for Trunking. They probably get frustrated and return them to Radio Shack saying they don't work right. Look at all the new people who come to RR asking for help programming their new trunking scanners.

 

[skipgoulet]

It all has to do with the Odessa TRS signal strength. Be sure to use a 800 mhz antenna on your handheld or your base and you should be in good shape. The location of the transmitter in Odessa (Dixie and Interstate 20) leaves something to be desired unless you are within 2 miles of downtown Odessa.:roll:

Thanks for that bit of info, Tom. Dwayne France was telling me the same thing. However, my Pro94 handheld is working just fine on both Midland and Odessa trunks...both in the house and mobile. In fact, I've been carrying the 94 with mein the car because the Pro2051 hasn't been receiving either trunk all that well except in warm temps. The one at home works fine with both trunks and the VHF/UHF traffic. J.D. talked to their technical people and they accused him of lying.

I agree with the other comment: people just don't know how to program the radios properly. BTW,Tom, do you know what traffic Midland trunk has just recently encrypted? I've been picking up digital-type noise on one of Midland's channels the past few days. It displays as 02-016. Had to lock it out because of the nuisance.

 

[tomtefe]

I think that 02-106 is SWAT/TAC comm training channel. They are fooling around with encryption when SWAT is activated so media can't listen (as it has happened in the past).

 

[skipgoulet]

Just out of curiousity, have you, or did Jose, ever resort to using the Freedom of Info Act to put a stop to that? I was talking to a mutual friend of ours about that the other day, because Odessa is encrypting the traffic from EMS to MCH because of the HIPPA stuff. He was saying that's nonsense sense the FCC allows you to listen to anything you want so long as it's not used for personal gain. The media is exempt on the "personal gain" clause. He was telling me that one (or more) of the stations in Lubbock had to do that. And I understand that MCH is refusing to give out any info from the ER, as to accident victims,etc., because of HIPPA. The guys at 7 seem to be lost when it comes to that. Have you found a viable solution?

 

[lil_jimmy_norton]

I'd say that it's just 17 people who don't know how to program a scanner for Trunking. They probably get frustrated and return them to Radio Shack saying they don't work right.

Bingo!

 

[grem467]

sense the FCC allows you to listen to anything you want so long as it's not used for personal gain.

where did you hear this? federal law probibits you from listening to any communications that is encrypted.

 

[skipgoulet]

where did you hear this? federal law probibits you from listening to any communications that is encrypted.

You're very wrong on that. The Freedom of Information Act gives the media the right to listen to ANY two-way communications...encrypted or not....that is deemed newsworthy. The problem stems from OTHER Federal laws that are interfering with media coverage, such as the HIPPA laws I previously mentioned. Even those can be circumvented by invoking the above ACT, and have been by various members of the media.

 

[mfn002]

Wow...I didn't know that. I thought that it was 100% illegal to listen to ANY encrypted traffic (DVP/DES scanners, anyone?).
SO...It would be perfectly legal to listen to San Antonio's ProVoice system if you can get around ESK (and have an imaginary scanner-LOL). More specifically, it would be LEGAL to even get around ESK, right?

 

[skipgoulet]

Wow...I didn't know that. I thought that it was 100% illegal to listen to ANY encrypted traffic (DVP/DES scanners, anyone?).
SO...It would be perfectly legal to listen to San Antonio's ProVoice system if you can get around ESK (and have an imaginary scanner-LOL). More specifically, it would be LEGAL to even get around ESK, right?

To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, the FCC permits encryption of certain "sensitive" traffic to keep dope dealers from hearing about upcoming busts,etc.; but to receive encrypted traffic is not yet prohibited by FCC rules; and when it comes to communications, the FCC is the ultimate authority...not Homeland Security, HIPPA, or anyone else. That having been said, don't be surprised if certain law enforcement officers would try to actually arrest someone for listening to something that is supposedly privileged traffic.

If you've kept up with some of my other threads, I've noted to a good deal of extent about how paranoid certain agencies are about people listening to the extent that they have actually arrested people for having receivers (in the pre-scanner days) in their cars. I noted in particular about a guy in Odessa back in the late 50s or early 60s that was a licensed Ham operator. He had one of the old Drake transceivers that occupied the entire underdash area of his car. Note, I said, he was a LICENSED operator. The receiver in his radio was capable of picking up the old lowband frequency in use at the time; and he would, in fact, listen to the lowband traffic as he drove around...not using what he heard to chase ambulances,etc. Anyway, one day he was sitting at a red light and a cop pulled up next to him. When the cop answered his radio, he heard his voice come over the other guy's radio. He pulled the guy over, and with the aid of a supervisor, they physically ripped out the radio and smashed it; and they cited the guy for illegal use of a "police radio", despite the fact that the gentleman showed him his license for the radio. They had what I call the "Rambo complex", you know...."WE ARE THE LAW". They thought that their word had more weight than what the FCC said. Guess again. Not only did the guy file criminal charges thru the S.O. against the PD for destroying his radio and improperly citing him, he filed a complaint with the FCC that ended up costing the city thousands of dollars. However, this never slowed them down until the mid-60s when they arrested a kid for a having a receiver, destroyed his radio,etc.. However, in this case, they baited the kid with a false call over their main channel. This time it cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to my knowlege, they haven't pursued the matter seriously since...except for trying to convince everyone that their new system isn't capable of being monitored.

As to listening to encrypted traffic, for the moment there is nothing out there just yet that will accomplish the task. But, years ago when scramblers were being used, it didn't take long for someone to market de-scramblers, and they were never deemed as being illegal.

 

[mfn002]

ANYWAY...I know an agency around here who still uses voice inversion...if that's what it is. It sounds like the voice is being crushed or someone is holding their nose...

 

[skipgoulet]

ANYWAY...I know an agency around here who still uses voice inversion...if that's what it is. It sounds like the voice is being crushed or someone is holding their nose...

That sounds very much like one of the old scramblers. I've only heard one since they came out, and that was in Altus,OK. Sounded kinda like someone talking through their nose and underwater all at the same time!

Someone from OK was telling me a while back that he had lived in Altus at the time and had managed to get a de-scrambler for his scanner. They were only supposed to be scrambling sensitive information; and he said he was very surprised when he found out that the "sensitive information" was the dispatcher giving the cops in the field her lunch order,etc.! Really sensitive, huh!

 

[mfn002]

Yeah, it's funny because the cops think its secure, when, if you listen carefully, you can understand what they are saying!!

 

[petrol88]

I suggest you read the ECPA. Specifically, sections 2510.16(a) and 2511 (in its entirety). I can find no FOIA exclusion...but maybe I missed it.

 

[DaveNF2G]

There are no exceptions. Not even for the press. The reason news media folks are not prosecuted for listening in and then profiting from hearing the traffic is twofold. First, most news organizations are very careful about how they actually use what they overhear. Once they've gotten confirmation from some other source, then the radio traffic is irrelevant. Second, the major media organizations have phalanxes of lawyers available and lots of money to keep enforcers at bay, while claiming First Amendment privileges that have never really been litigated or established.

 

[mfn002]

I suspected as much...

 

[DaveIN]

Didn't even one of those 17 have their scanner programmed at the Radio Shack store?

Don't you think some of them can read and follow instructions?

 

[kc4jgc]

Instructions? Who needs stinkin' instructions?

Didn't even one of those 17 have their scanner programmed at the Radio Shack store?

Don't you think some of them can read and follow instructions?

Instruction books? It's just extra padding for unit...... Seriously, I do believe manuals are either ignored or people are overwhelmed/intimidated by an 80 page book. A little over a year ago, I bought a second pro-95 (I thought I had fried the first one) that had been returned twice because it "didn't work". Looking at the channels before purchasing the radio, I was AMAZED at the many programming errors I found. Incorrect modes entered was the primary problem. I reprogrammed using WIN95 and it worked fine. I eventually sold it to someone in Richmond, programming it for his area before sending it to him.

 

[skipgoulet]

Didn't even one of those 17 have their scanner programmed at the Radio Shack store?

Don't you think some of them can read and follow instructions?

Programming? At Radio Shack? Surely you jest! When the guys at the Radio Shack that I have mentioned in a number of threads started panicking about their scanners not receiving Odessa's new digital system, a well-known member of the media who subscribes to this form programmed their store demo for them!

As to whether the media, or anyone else, can listen to certain traffic...this is not a matter of legislation. As I've already mentioned, the FCC is the ultimate and only authority where any sort of communications is concerned...not Homeland Security, Congress, George, or anyone else! And so long as the FCC maintains its policy of the "Public's right to know", then listening to anything capable of being monitored will always be allowed.

To go into a bit more of communications law: Until just a few years ago, it was a reasonable assumption (not to mention law) that if a person was not licensed to operate on a specific frequency...or at least had permission...verbal or written....by the licensee, they could be fined, and in some cases, imprisoned for illegal use of either the radio or the frequency. A lot of that changed with the Communications Act of 1997 which now allows an unlicensed person, in an emergency, to access any frequency to which he has availablity, during the course of that emergency, to call for assistance.

A couple of years ago I heard about a volunteer fireman not far from where I live who had authority for use of the county's volunteer fire channel. This gentleman had a mutli-channel radio in his vehicle which was supposedly field-programmable. This fellow had apparently run upon a serious MVA and had attempted to contact fire dispatch to request an ambulance. Having received no response, he accessed the county's "talk channel" for the Sheriff's Office....thereby raising the S.O. dispatcher. He properly identified himself as Fire Unit such-and-such when talking to the dispatcher. She promptly dispatched the proper agencies. In addition, the county's communications officer, who at the time was also a deput sheriff, also responed and arrested the guy for illegal access of the sheriff's frequency based on the Communications Act of 1934. I don't remember what happened to the guy so far as any sort of fine or jail time imposed by the county; but I do recall reading or hearing that he had appealed to the FCC. It was their ruling that no violation of FCC rules and regs had occured based on the newer Comm Act of 1997 which supeseded the Act of 1934..or at least in this instance, and that further, no law enforcement officer had the authority to act so far as making arrests or fines in a matter reserved exclusively to the FCC and its appointed officers. That having been said, I never heard if there was any sort of reversal of local action. Legalities, legalities!