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.

 

[n1chu]

I’ve set up two scanners, one listening on the UHF frequency for Avon Police Dispatch and the other on their Dispatch talkgroup for CLMRN in order to determine where the encryption is applied to the transmissions. I have only been listening off and on for a couple of days. Previous to setting up two scanners I have heard them in the clear on the UHF frequency and on two occasions I’ve heard the encryption version on CLMRN while my SDS200 was scanning. But I have yet to hear them in the clear on CLMRN or encrypted on UHF. Granted, I’ve only been listening on and off for a couple of days but so far, I haven’t heard anything to allow me to state the encryption is only applied to that which is transmitted on their 10411 TG. But that’s what I’m beginning to believe. I can run my two scanners and monitor or somebody can tell me they already have the answer to exactly what is getting encrypted and where that encryption is being applied?

 

[gn32772]

The Radioreference database is now showing Avon Police Dispatch with "TE" as the mode.

 

[n1chu]

Just to be clear, the “T” stands for TDMA capable.

The “E” stands for full time encryption. A lower case “e” designates part time encryption in some form.

Here is what RR shows when you double click on the Mode column…
“Mode defines the type of transmission broadcast on this talkgroup. Analog transmissions are standard voice, Digital and TDMA transmissions are digitally modulated.
A = Analog Talkgroup
D = Digital Talkgroup
M = Mixed Analog/Digital
T = TDMA Capable Talkgroup
--
A trailing lowercase e represents partial encryption. A trailing uppercase E represents full encryption.” End quote.

When talking about any individual aspect listed in the Mode column only a single letter is used. So, in the case of this post it would be the single letter upper case “E”.

However, it appears the Avon PD is not encrypting the originating transmission on their UHF dispatch frequency because I have heard their UHF dispatches in the clear. It’s only on CLMRN do I hear encryption. I suspect the encryption is injected after the patch from UHF to CLMRN. But since it seems the intention to encrypt is favored, I suspect the PD will stop transmitting in the clear on UHF.

I haven’t expressed a personal opinion on Avon’s move to CLMRN. It’s meaningless as no one should care what the Monday morning quarterbacks think. However, that’s not to say I am displeased. On the contrary, I for one am pleased with what Avon has accomplished and hope their continued buildout goes smoothly.

 

[W1KNE]

The Radioreference database is now showing Avon Police Dispatch with "TE" as the mode.

It was changed on November 25th.

Connecticut Land Mobile Radio Network (CLMRN) Trunking System Latest Updates

Connecticut Land Mobile Radio Network (CLMRN) Trunking System Lastest Updates

www.radioreference.com

 

[n1chu]

…and, Avon is not through. There are additional TG’s to be added to both fire and police. The following is just a guess but when relating to the police, the mode column may see a change to their Dispatch TG (10411). While Dispatch is currently encrypted full time it may change to a lower case “e” or no encryption at all after-additional TG’s are added for the detective division, administration, special units, which, my guess, will be fully encrypted. Time will tell. (I suspect Avon PD has always used other modes of communications such as MDT’s or cell phones for anything they considered proprietary or sensitive as their UHF Dispatch channel has always been I. The clear but very quiet.)

 

[adamfancher]

I've started picking up affiliations and OTA aliases, here is what I've got so far:

Avon 2 Portable #2	44002	--	--	Portable	2025/01/08	--
Fire Police Portable #4	44006	--	--	Portable	2025/01/06	--
#xxxx	44022	--	--	Portable	2025/01/06	--
Fire Tanker 20	44036	--	--	Portable	2024/12/20	--
#xxxx	44053	--	--	Portable	2025/01/06	--
Cap 23	44059	--	--	Portable	2025/01/06	--
#xxxx	44061	--	--	Portable	2024/12/24	--
Cap 25	44063	--	--	Portable	2025/01/06	--
LT 32	44065	--	--	Portable	2025/01/12	--
LT 33	44066	--	--	Portable	2024/12/23	--
Portable #6	44082	--	--	Portable	2025/01/06	--
Portable #1	44083	--	--	Portable	2025/01/04	--
Portable #2	44084	--	--	Portable	2025/01/01	--
Portable #5	44087	--	--	Portable	2024/12/23	--
Police Sgt. Arbogast	44089	--	--	Portable	2025/01/01	--
Police Ofc. Casey	44090	--	--	Portable	2025/01/13	--
Police Ofc. Guth	44103	--	--	Portable	2024/12/30	--
Police Ofc. Levin	44108	--	--	Portable	2024/10/31	--
#xxxx	44116	--	--	Portable	2024/10/29	--
Police Lt. Williams	44123	--	--	Portable	2024/10/24	--
#xxxx	44143	--	--	Portable	2024/11/06	--
#xxxx	44475	--	--	Portable	2022/08/28	--
#xxxx	44703	--	--	Portable	2022/01/31	--

I couldn't decipher some of the aliases like "LT" and "Cap" (Ladder truck? Lieutenant? Captain?) so feel free to chime in with any additional details...

 

[adamfancher]

However, it appears the Avon PD is not encrypting the originating transmission on their UHF dispatch frequency because I have heard their UHF dispatches in the clear. It’s only on CLMRN do I hear encryption. I suspect the encryption is injected after the patch from UHF to CLMRN. But since it seems the intention to encrypt is favored, I suspect the PD will stop transmitting in the clear on UHF.

I've noticed the same thing with my local PD (Winsted). Still on the open air in plain old analog, but the same radio traffic is encrypted on CLRMN. Essentially what I end up with is the audio on my analog scanner coupled with the OTA aliases on CLRMN that reveal not only badge numbers but names of the officers (so much for keeping everything under wraps with encryption) which is the best of both worlds for me