Why is the Harris XL200 so popular ?

[APX6k]

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression the newer firmware and RPM versions > Ver. 14 required a WACN (system) key to modify trunking parameters, hence the BK/Relm KNG series or a Unication have been consistently recommended for passive PI/PII TRS monitoring with a "commercial grade" subscriber. Is this not the case? Removing the system key requirement for passive monitoring gives everyone peace of mind that no combination of improper programming can result in unintended system affiliation, as certain fields cannot be adjusted sans system key - is this possible with the XL200P as it is with the KNG and (hopefully) the BKR9000?

- J

 

[wa8pyr]

I get what you’re saying, but registering = affiliating… this is just a terminology issue

No, it is not just a terminology issue. Registration and Affiliation are two different things.

Registration occurs when the radio is turned on and identifies itself to the system; the system then determines if the radio is legitimate and either allows it on the system or not.

Affiliation comes next, where the radio announces what talkgroup it‘s on; the system then determines if that talkgroup is allowed on that site, and if so starts passing audio.

Affiliation happens every time there’s a channel change, but registration usually only happens when the radio initially comes on line. It’s a bit more involved than that, but that’s the general process.

 

[BMDaug]

No, it is not just a terminology issue. Registration and Affiliation are two different things.

Registration occurs when the radio is turned on and identifies itself to the system; the system then determines if the radio is legitimate and either allows it on the system or not.

Affiliation comes next, where the radio announces what talkgroup it‘s on; the system then determines if that talkgroup is allowed on that site, and if so starts passing audio.

Affiliation happens every time there’s a channel change, but registration usually only happens when the radio initially comes on line. It’s a bit more involved than that, but that’s the general process.

Ah I see! Thanks! So what your hinting at is NAS is a misnomer anyway since that specific technique actually stops the radio from registering at all, which is what makes the radio “known to the network”, so it should be called NRS… or am I missing something again?

Man, you learn something every day here! Thanks again!!

-B

 

[redbeard]

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression the newer firmware and RPM versions > Ver. 14 required a WACN (system) key to modify trunking parameters, hence the BK/Relm KNG series or a Unication have been consistently recommended for passive PI/PII TRS monitoring with a "commercial grade" subscriber. Is this not the case? Removing the system key requirement for passive monitoring gives everyone peace of mind that no combination of improper programming can result in unintended system affiliation, as certain fields cannot be adjusted sans system key - is this possible with the XL200P as it is with the KNG and (hopefully) the BKR9000?

- J

RPM newer than 10 requires an AAC key and all versions of RPM2 as well. XL-200 programs via RPM2. Anyone using RPM 14 or RPM2 with a radio for trunked RX is using a hacked version.

 

[APX6k]

RPM newer than 10 requires an AAC key and all versions of RPM2 as well. XL-200 programs via RPM2. Anyone using RPM 14 or RPM2 with a radio for trunked RX is using a hacked version.

Got it, thanks for clarifying, redbeard! So, from a commercial perspective, the BK KNG/BKR or a Unication are the only currently manufactured options for legitimate/non-hacked TRS passive monitoring.

- J

 

[BMDaug]

Got it, thanks for clarifying, redbeard! So, from a commercial perspective, the BK KNG/BKR or a Unication are the only currently manufactured options for legitimate/non-hacked TRS passive monitoring.

- J

That’s my understanding, yes.

-B

 

[redbeard]

I don't know from experience if the BK radio passes the requirement to be 100% legal due to the fact it's still a transmitter and FCC says you cannot program frequencies you have no license for into a transmitter. Depending on how it's programmed it may or may not.

 

[GTR8000]

No, it is not just a terminology issue. Registration and Affiliation are two different things.

Registration occurs when the radio is turned on and identifies itself to the system; the system then determines if the radio is legitimate and either allows it on the system or not.

Affiliation comes next, where the radio announces what talkgroup it‘s on; the system then determines if that talkgroup is allowed on that site, and if so starts passing audio.

Affiliation happens every time there’s a channel change, but registration usually only happens when the radio initially comes on line. It’s a bit more involved than that, but that’s the general process.

This! I've been beating that drum for years, but the misnamed "non-affiliate" scan persists. It's really non-registration scan, because the subscriber should never even get to the affiliation stage, since it would never attempt to register. Oh well, whatever...bigger fish to fry.

 

[ElroyJetson]

I don't know from experience if the BK radio passes the requirement to be 100% legal due to the fact it's still a transmitter and FCC says you cannot program frequencies you have no license for into a transmitter. Depending on how it's programmed it may or may not.

I've heard that but never seen it substantiated by any reference to the specific FCC regulation. Please, if you have it, cite it, chapter and verse.

If that regulation exists I doubt it would pass scrutiny if challenged in court. An inactive transmitter is not at risk of being shut down by the FCC, as it is only RF emissions that they regulate, which does include the requirement that receiving devices must not generate harmful interference.

The FCC doesn't have anything to say that limits your ability to receive a signal. Airwaves in the U.S. are public property and information sent over them does not presume privacy, which was established in the 1934 Communications Act.

 

[prcguy]

Anyone can purchase and own a transmitter of any kind, no law or rule against that. If a transceiver has a option to make a channel receive only then how can there be any law or rule against programming a receive only frequency? I have seen FCC wording about programming transmit frequencies under some circumstances of not having authorization not being legal, but that has no bearing on a receive only channel where a transmitter is disabled as in a Harris or BK commercial radio.

I've had two FCC field engineers in my house doing an inspection looking for things and I had all kinds of transceivers laying around that I did not have any kind of license for at the time and they didn't care about any of them.

I've heard that but never seen it substantiated by any reference to the specific FCC regulation. Please, if you have it, cite it, chapter and verse.

If that regulation exists I doubt it would pass scrutiny if challenged in court. An inactive transmitter is not at risk of being shut down by the FCC, as it is only RF emissions that they regulate, which does include the requirement that receiving devices must not generate harmful interference.

The FCC doesn't have anything to say that limits your ability to receive a signal. Airwaves in the U.S. are public property and information sent over them does not presume privacy, which was established in the 1934 Communications Act.

 

[IFRIED91]

I was wondering if harris XL radios are capable of digital tone signaling like Motorola apx radios can. i.e. if a trunking system has a fire alert talkgroup.

 

[wa8pyr]

I was wondering if harris XL radios are capable of digital tone signaling like Motorola apx radios can. i.e. if a trunking system has a fire alert talkgroup.

Are you talking about two-tone paging over P25? If so, this is a feature Harris is working on; theoretically supposed to be released later this year, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[mmckenna]

I've heard that but never seen it substantiated by any reference to the specific FCC regulation. Please, if you have it, cite it, chapter and verse.

§ 90.427 Precautions against unauthorized operation.
(a) Each transmitter shall be so installed and protected that it is not accessible to or capable of operation by persons other than those duly authorized by and under the control of the licensee. Provisions of this part authorizing certain unlicensed persons to operate stations, or authorizing unattended operation of stations in certain circumstances, shall not be construed to change or diminish in any respect the responsibility of station licensees to maintain control over the stations licensed to them (including all transmitter units thereof), or for the proper functioning and operation of those stations and transmitter units in accordance with the terms of the licenses of those stations.


(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with § 90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.




However, I agree with PRCGUY, if the radio is set up to NOT transmit, then this rule wouldn't play into it.

I'll also point out that 90.427 even applies to BaoFengs and the rest of the CCR's.

 

[ElroyJetson]

I must note that other than simplex and conventional repeater frequencies, you don't actually program transmit frequencies into trunked system data. You program receive frequencies and the radio transmits on the offset. So...technically...I'm literally not programming a single trunking transmit frequency.

It IS all a moot point until a transmission actually occurs.

 

[mmckenna]

I must note that other than simplex and conventional repeater frequencies, you don't actually program transmit frequencies into trunked system data. You program receive frequencies and the radio transmits on the offset. So...technically...I'm literally not programming a single trunking transmit frequency.

It IS all a moot point until a transmission actually occurs.

Yeah, I agree. I think the FCC, if they wanted to get you, would find a way, even if the radio did the offset automagically. Easy solution is to make sure it never transmits, and no one will ever know.

 

[nikronzo]

However, the danger of affiling on an L3 radio is lower than a Moto since Harris radios are designed to do a scan of the system without registration. That cannot be said of moto subscriber hardware

 

[ElroyJetson]

Concerning AAC, WACN limitations, system keys, etc....without discussing those matters, I merely wish to point out that historically speaking, all methods that have been used to limit the ability of "system outsiders" to program their radios as they wish have been eventually defeated, and I seen no reason why this pattern of activity should not continue. It's always a war between the programmers who try to restrict access, and the programmers who hack their way in and lift those restrictions. Eventually, the hackers win. They may take a long time, maybe even long enough that by the time they succeed it's a moot point, but anything that can be programmed, can be understood and worked around by a smarter programmer. And sometimes, the hackers win very quickly.

 

[rjschilder]

Hackers win until they use LLA for affiliation. Good luck defeating a unique AES key per radio to affiliate with infrastructure. For NAS or NRS, LLA doesn't matter.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

Hackers win until they use LLA for affiliation. Good luck defeating a unique AES key per radio to affiliate with infrastructure. For NAS or NRS, LLA doesn't matter.

I have no issues with LLA. As you stated, it keeps out rogue radios and still allows NAS to function regardless of platform. I think its a win win for everyone. Those who want to listen correctly still can do so and the system integrity is kept intact to keep out those that want to do sketchy stuff.

 

[Lincoln56]

Maybe. I missed it. How do you program in a WACN without an authorization key for that system on your AAC License? I assume you are using RPM2. Curious.