American Electric Power (AEP) P25 WACN 92715

[firemantom26]

@mtindor is like a kid a Christmas with all but a few that need confirmed for Ohio. LOL

 

[mtindor]

@mtindor is like a kid a Christmas with all but a few that need confirmed for Ohio. LOL

For real. But Christmas is pretty much over. Aside from confirming, with full details, remaining Ohio sites that we know about, there is nothing left in Ohio until those couple W/SW of @n8jsw come online and Amsterdam/Calcutta come online for you to find.

It's been great fun though watching the Ohio buildout. I'm sure that as more activity is seen in other states, folks in those states will be feeling the same way as we did.

M

 

[mtindor]

Well I have been focused on sites. I can set up a SDR to start targeting sites but I am not as good as listening to recordings. What helps you map the TG'S?

Same with me. I could monitor quite a few sites and try to figure out talkgroups. But, I'm ashamed to say that I care little about sleuthing talkgroups. I use wildcards in my scanners LOL. I have seen no rhyme or reason thus far to the talkgroups currently in place. If I ever start seeing some kind of trend with talkgroups / their usage, then at that point I'll probably start recording them.

 

[west-pac]

Same with me. I could monitor quite a few sites and try to figure out talkgroups. But, I'm ashamed to say that I care little about sleuthing talkgroups. I use wildcards in my scanners LOL. I have seen no rhyme or reason thus far to the talkgroups currently in place. If I ever start seeing some kind of trend with talkgroups / their usage, then at that point I'll probably start recording them.

Same here. I'd rather scan a tower (ID Search) than a group of TGs (ID Scan). I've never programmed a list of TGs into any of my scanners. I just memorize the common TG numbers, and look up in the DB anything of interest that I don't know.

Btw, 1F5 TG 1222 is a "Trouble" but I don't know where. I caught the very end of a transmission on site 45 and heard a guy give a road intersection then say "Trouble out". Also, on UT last night the RIDs were not being displayed. Is that common for this system?

 

[mtindor]

Btw, 1F5 TG 1222 is a "Trouble" but I don't know where. I caught the very end of a transmission on site 45 and heard a guy give a road intersection then say "Trouble out". Also, on UT last night the RIDs were not being displayed. Is that common for this system?

"Trouble" is a good start. On any of the "trouble" talkgroups, they eventually end up saying "zanesville trouble" or "fort wayne trouble" or something to nail it down. Usually doesn't take too long listening, on a day when there is inclement weather. If the weather is clear, IDing AEP talkgroups is more futile than watching paint dry.

The radio ID situation is just plain weird. This system behaves like no other that the usual P25 scanner app guys have ever seen I think. It does not surprise me that Unitrunker doesn't always show radio IDs, especially if its not the Unitrunker 2 from the author's Google group. But even that may have difficult.

I use DSDPlus, and this system will display 98xxxxx radio IDs when monitoring the control channel but 20xxxxx radio IDs (which are the real radio Ids) when latched onto a voice call. And, there is also patching going on in between the old EDACS and the new P25 in certain places. Then you have the guys out in the field who are using the BeON app (I think that's what it is called) on their phone, whihc may show something else entirely. When using DSDPlus you'll see a lot of [EXTERNAL] calls, which I presume are patches or some sort of non-RF link between the old EDACS system or between the BeON app and the network.

If using a recent version of DSDPlus, around here when the guys start talking, I'll see referenced to "unhandled PDU".

 

[firemantom26]

I am not sure why DSD pPlus started that Unhandled PDU. Harris radio must of changed something in their system.

 

[wa8pyr]

I use DSDPlus, and this system will display 98xxxxx radio IDs when monitoring the control channel but 20xxxxx radio IDs (which are the real radio Ids) when latched onto a voice call. And, there is also patching going on in between the old EDACS and the new P25 in certain places. Then you have the guys out in the field who are using the BeON app (I think that's what it is called) on their phone, whihc may show something else entirely. When using DSDPlus you'll see a lot of [EXTERNAL] calls, which I presume are patches or some sort of non-RF link between the old EDACS system or between the BeON app and the network.

Mike,

Have you tried Unitrunker or Pro96Com to see if they exhibit the same behavior regarding LID numbers (ie 98xxxxx vs 20xxxxx)? I'm going to put a few questions to my contacts at Harris to see if they can shed some light, but I want to have my facts straight before I do.

And yes, it's called BeON. It's a direct connection between the radio system controller and the cellular network, which allows users with the app to communicate just as if the phone was a radio; the phone (with the proper app) has to be provisioned on the system just like a radio.

Tom

 

[mtindor]

Mike,

Have you tried Unitrunker or Pro96Com to see if they exhibit the same behavior regarding LID numbers (ie 98xxxxx vs 20xxxxx)? I'm going to put a few questions to my contacts at Harris to see if they can shed some light, but I want to have my facts straight before I do.

And yes, it's called BeON. It's a direct connection between the radio system controller and the cellular network, which allows users with the app to communicate just as if the phone was a radio; the phone (with the proper app) has to be provisioned on the system just like a radio.

Tom

Tom,

It happens the same on anything I've monitored (Uniden SDS-100, Unitrunker, or DSDPlus). Either the radio IDs do not show up when monitoring the control channel, or they show up as 98xxxx when monitoring the control channel. If monitoring a _voice_ channel (with DSDPlus or SDRTrunk, haven't done it with UT) then the real 20xxxx radio IDs are displayed. I know they are the real radio IDs because the 20xxxxx radio IDs are usually tied to unit/truck numbers and things like that. And, just as a tidbit of info, AEP (at least in Ohio) is no longer using the old truck numbers or numbering for individual employees. On the old EDACS system, the Steubenville guys were 77xx. They are some other unit numbers now (I forget what they call themselves). That changed, at least in east Ohio, when they switched to the P25 system.

Mike

PS: I no longer own a scanner that will work with Pro96Com

 

[scannerboy02]

Is it possible that this is due to using the XL-185M radios with built-in LTE? If the radio is on the LMR system it has one set of ID's and another if its on the LTE system?

 

[wa8pyr]

Is it possible that this is due to using the XL-185M radios with built-in LTE? If the radio is on the LMR system it has one set of ID's and another if its on the LTE system?

That's possible; using the LTE system would basically be the same as a BeON app, just an alternate device. The puzzlement is that the same radio is showing up with two different IDs depending on whether one is monitoring via control channel or the ID is being sent via the voice channel.

 

[mtindor]

The puzzlement is that the same radio is showing up with two different IDs depending on whether one is monitoring via control channel or the ID is being sent via the voice channel.

Exactly. That is highly unlikely to be an LTE / BeON app thing. It happens across the board for voice activity on the system. 98xxxxx radio Ids on the control channel, 2xxxxxx radio Ids on the voice channel (and those 2xxxxxx could be different depending upon geographic area, which subsidiary). Here in Ohio, its 98xxxxx on CC, 20xxxxx on VC.

Mike

 

[west-pac]

Exactly. That is highly unlikely to be an LTE / BeON app thing. It happens across the board for voice activity on the system. 98xxxxx radio Ids on the control channel, 2xxxxxx radio Ids on the voice channel (and those 2xxxxxx could be different depending upon geographic area, which subsidiary). Here in Ohio, its 98xxxxx on CC, 20xxxxx on VC.

Mike

Can you direct call individual radios on a Phase 2 system? Today I see a couple RIDs as targets on UT. Those RIDs being 20xxxx and 19xxxx, all of them were denied, and all of them have a "0" as a source. I'm seeing the 98xxxxx numbers are 7-digits, whereas the 19xxxx and 20xxxx RIDs are 6-digits.

 

[nd5y]

Can you direct call individual radios on a Phase 2 system?

Yes.

 

[gtaman]

I’ve been leaving my SDS200 on record all day slowly tagging talkgroups. The RID thing is surely bizarre. The only thing I could think of is some sort of patching.

 

[mtindor]

I’ve been leaving my SDS200 on record all day slowly tagging talkgroups. The RID thing is surely bizarre. The only thing I could think of is some sort of patching.

I"m glad us guys in the east aren't the only ones who noticed it. Pretty odd behavior for sure.

Mike

 

[west-pac]

I have 1F5-39 and 1F5-37 site data I'll submit later today. 37 is in Noble county. 37's only neighbors were 39 & 40. So far not finding anything further north or west.

 

[mtindor]

We have another submitter in the OK/TX area on board who has confirmed a Texas 1F8 site and another Oklahoma 1F9 site. I won't mention his name because he may not wish me to. But to him I say thanks!

 

[wa8pyr]

Rgr that. Well, you will know. If somebody comes gthrough before the weekend for southern Ohio, we'll know about it in this thread. I wouldn't count on it though. I know there are no NEOH guys scheduling any trips down that way time soon. So it's probably safe to say that those sites will still need to be confirmed come the weekend.

Went down south yesterday and. . . nada. I searched the 800 MHz band at South Point, Russell, Ironton and Portsmouth; using an antenna on the outside of the truck the only new thing I got was the CC you listed for South Point with a NAC of 03E, and it was so weak no other data came through. Next time I go south I'll check again unless someone else gets there first.

I did see a bunch of ferroequines, though.

Tom

 

[mtindor]

I have 1F5-39 and 1F5-37 site data I'll submit later today. 37 is in Noble county. 37's only neighbors were 39 & 40. So far not finding anything further north or west.

Thanks for the two new Indiana sites. Great job!

Mike

 

[west-pac]

Thanks for the two new Indiana sites. Great job!

Mike

Mike, do you suspect there might be any sites in the Darke county area? I might head over to a sandwich shoppe in Greenville today, where the sandwiches are made right. 🤣