AVON (CLMRN)

[n1chu]

As previously discussed on a topic entitled “Tac a”, the Town of Avon is in the process of joining CLMRN. The talkgroups currently recognized are 10421 for fire dispatch, which I, among others have confirmed as in fact, fire dispatch for Avon, which they have patched to CLMRN. Another talkgroup of 10411 has encrypted activity which sounds suspiciously like inversion (see below). This talkgroup has not had any firm confirmations as to exactly what is being said in order to confirm if it is in fact Avon’s PD dispatch channel but the fact it’s a TG using Avon’s prefix (104) along with what has already been confirmed about Avon FD, it’s a good bet it’s a TG assigned to Avon PD, probably their dispatch. I can confirm a transmission this afternoon (Saturday, Nov
23, 2024) was heard in its entirety but it was scrambled so I have no intelligible consensus of what was said. I have mentioned the day and date to point out it was probably a police business transmission and not a technician who was responsible for the transmission, given it’s Saturday… I doubt techs get much routine OT on the weekends or holidays-I could be mistaken and would not object to someone disputing this. I’m only spitballing here while justifying why I think it’s a forgone conclusion that TG 10411 is Avon Police Dispatch.

I mention “inversion” as a type of encryption but I am only familiar with this type of encryption’s use on frequencies using conventional FM, not digital. And to add to that, it’s my understanding the SDS200 will ignore most or all of the more common methods of encryption and continue scanning. My SDS200 stopped on the transmission on TG 10411 which was heard loud and clear. Can I guess Avon has inverted their transmission on the conventional frequency BEFORE it is fed via patch to CLMRN?

 

[smartconnect]

As previously discussed on a topic entitled “Tac a”, the Town of Avon is in the process of joining CLMRN. The talkgroups currently recognized are 10421 for fire dispatch, which I, among others have confirmed as in fact, fire dispatch for Avon, which they have patched to CLMRN. Another talkgroup of 10411 has encrypted activity which sounds suspiciously like inversion (see below). This talkgroup has not had any firm confirmations as to exactly what is being said in order to confirm if it is in fact Avon’s PD dispatch channel but the fact it’s a TG using Avon’s prefix (104) along with what has already been confirmed about Avon FD, it’s a good bet it’s a TG assigned to Avon PD, probably their dispatch. I can confirm a transmission this afternoon (Saturday, Nov
23, 2024) was heard in its entirety but it was scrambled so I have no intelligible consensus of what was said. I have mentioned the day and date to point out it was probably a police business transmission and not a technician who was responsible for the transmission, given it’s Saturday… I doubt techs get much routine OT on the weekends or holidays-I could be mistaken and would not object to someone disputing this. I’m only spitballing here while justifying why I think it’s a forgone conclusion that TG 10411 is Avon Police Dispatch.

I mention “inversion” as a type of encryption but I am only familiar with this type of encryption’s use on frequencies using conventional FM, not digital. And to add to that, it’s my understanding the SDS200 will ignore most or all of the more common methods of encryption and continue scanning. My SDS200 stopped on the transmission on TG 10411 which was heard loud and clear. Can I guess Avon has inverted their transmission on the conventional frequency BEFORE it is fed via patch to CLMRN?

avon pd has aes-256 encryption capabilities upcoming with the new upgrades

 

[srsanford]

I monitor CLMRN's Troop H site using SDRTrunk. All TG 10411 calls are indeed logged as AES-256 encrypted group calls. The timings of the 10411 events do sync up with events from Avon Police Operations channel on 453.0500 which I just started monitoring today on another device using SDRTrunk.

Additionally, I have also heard radio service testing on TG's 10422, 10423, 10425, and 10442.

 

[smartconnect]

I monitor CLMRN's Troop H site using SDRTrunk. All TG 10411 calls are indeed logged as AES-256 encrypted group calls. The timings of the 10411 events do sync up with events from Avon Police Operations channel on 453.0500 which I just started monitoring today on another device using SDRTrunk.

Additionally, I have also heard radio service testing on TG's 10422, 10423, 10425, and 10442.

Code red

 

[n1chu]

avon pd has aes-256 encryption capabilities upcoming with the new upgrades

 

[n1chu]

Ok. But it is confusing… If aes-256 is included with the new CLMRN system, and the SDS200 is supposed to ignore it and continue scanning, why is my SDS200 stopping on the transmissions for as long as they transmit? I don’t see encryption listed in the database on RR for the conventional 453.05 MHz freq, I have been able to hear Avon PD dispatch in the clear. Should I assume the encryption is only included with the 10411 TG? Or is it something new that is incorporated with the current 453.05 MHz conventional system, and then patched to CLMRN?

 

[Reconrider]

Ok. But it is confusing… If aes-256 is included with the new CLMRN system, and the SDS200 is supposed to ignore it and continue scanning, why is my SDS200 stopping on the transmissions for as long as they transmit?

The "ignore encrypted voice comms" is not full proof. It all depends when your scanner picks up that talking. It will only skip it if it can tell it's encrypted from the voice frames - which is basically the first voice frame set. The 2nd set doesn't tell the scanner it's encrypted and you will hear it. It shouldn't happen often, and if it does - use the l/o button

 

[WoodenEarth]

So, to summarize, Avon's emergency responders are switching to a P25 system, right? And my Whistler 1040 won't work with it. But I thought they'd also somehow broadcast (simulcast?) FD on the current system.

Sorry for such newbie noise, here. I did skim through this first:

Connecticut Telecommunications System

portal.ct.gov

 

[n1chu]

While your assumption is logical, (that Avon might continue patching their current UHF system with CLMRN, at least for dispatching), it’s my understanding they wanted to be done with the UHF system altogether. The system currently runs two repeaters to gain as much coverage as possible and they still have gaps. They use two different sets of tones to dispatch, allowing first one repeater to broadcast their paging signal and then the other, having to repeat the dispatch. Add to that one of their antenna sites they wanted to improve on is located in Canton and Canton said no to any improvements that included raising the height. So, instead of setting up their own P25 system independently they resigned themselves to jump on board with CLMRN. Now, I’m not saying Avon will not continue with the dispatch patch on CLMRN, and continue using their UHF stuff but after all they went through they may just continue thinking they should put the current UHF system to bed once and for all. But I have no knowledge of what the current thinking is… one can always hope they’ve realized a benefit to continue with the patch. Time will tell.

 

[simfire479]

While your assumption is logical, (that Avon might continue patching their current UHF system with CLMRN, at least for dispatching), it’s my understanding they wanted to be done with the UHF system altogether. The system currently runs two repeaters to gain as much coverage as possible and they still have gaps. They use two different sets of tones to dispatch, allowing first one repeater to broadcast their paging signal and then the other, having to repeat the dispatch. Add to that one of their antenna sites they wanted to improve on is located in Canton and Canton said no to any improvements that included raising the height. So, instead of setting up their own P25 system independently they resigned themselves to jump on board with CLMRN. Now, I’m not saying Avon will not continue with the dispatch patch on CLMRN, and continue using their UHF stuff but after all they went through they may just continue thinking they should put the current UHF system to bed once and for all. But I have no knowledge of what the current thinking is… one can always hope they’ve realized a benefit to continue with the patch. Time will tell.

From what i have heard Avon with keep the uhf to tone out their members for a call and then all other traffic will be on CLMRN.

 

[n1chu]

From what i have heard Avon with keep the uhf to tone out their members for a call and then all other traffic will be on CLMRN.

Good to hear. Avon had passed a budget with ample amounts of funds for the project but possibly not enough for pagers? Where did you hear this?

 

[simfire479]

Good to hear. Avon had passed a budget with ample amounts of funds for the project but possibly not enough for pagers? Where did you hear this?

One of the fire chiefs

 

[n1chu]

One of the fire chiefs

Well, ok then. Your information is more current than mine. My information (also from one of the chiefs) preceded the decision to go the CLMRN route. I’ve programmed in the TG’s from 10421-10425, labeling ‘21 as Fire Dispatch and ‘22-‘25 as Fire Tac for the time being. When it gets firmed up I’ll change the labeling to FG and Fire Police.