CT State Police - Talkgroups

Status
Not open for further replies.

loudjr

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
11
Location
Waterbury, CT
Does anyone have the talkgroups that cannot be publically posted. Feel free to send me a private message

Thanks!
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
95
All the ones that are out there are posted in the database. I don't think their is any that "can't be publicly posted".

And the best way to try to aquire ones that aren't posted would be to set your scanner into ID search mode.
 

awasser1

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
394
Location
Bloomfield, CT
RR is very complete with CSP TG's. Its very very rare I get one not on the lists. And they are kept very up to date on here. If one pops up its probably very rarely used.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
32
Location
Killingly CT
both previous posts are very true. the only one i found that is not posted was an id of 1104. other than that they are all there. the only stuff you may not hear and they arent on the csp's system are their low power channels and those only travel about 2 miles depending on terrain. you hear that stuff alot on southern newlondon county and are used alot by the DMV. alot has to do with what part of their system your listening to. if your listening to 867.200 (troop D control channel) then you will only hear limited stuff as you will with 868.3375 (troop E control channel). if you are listening on 868.9125 (troop K control channel) youll hear alot of stuff on alot of different talk groups. i monitor all of them except for the private call wild card id and i only hear some of the troops, the DMV, administration, and statewide common. the rest of the talk groups i have never in the past 5 or so years ive had the scanner ever heard anything on all the other talk groups. they really dont use the system to its fullest from what ive observed.
 

izzyj4

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
873
Location
The 2nd village Anson Phelps founded in CT.
Also CSP has some encrypted channels for tactical ops and such which you will not be able to monitor anyway. As for the usage of these channels, I'm not sure if they are used a lot but I know they are there (I'm a former dispatcher for them) and have limited access.
 

cg

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
3,084
Location
Connecticut
the database is adequate for monitoring but has quite a bit of outdated information. Many channels have changed designation, some have changed use, some are missing and some have been incorrect for years.

chris
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
95
the database is adequate for monitoring but has quite a bit of outdated information. Many channels have changed designation, some have changed use, some are missing and some have been incorrect for years.

chris

Could you be so kind as to tell us which ones those are?
 

cg

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
3,084
Location
Connecticut
There are several reasons I don't post the info I have accumulated (not all related to the CSP system). Sometimes I get info from people who don't want it disseminated further. It may be confirmation of talkgroups, PLs, etc. Also the volume of people who are just looking for info but never submit anything (database or forums) seems to be increasing all the time. Last, the commercial use of the database (iScan) at the same time I needed to pay to renew my subscription pretty much marked the permanent end of my formal database contributions (which had slowed).

I submitted all my info on the CSP TRS to RR quite a few years ago (there was nothing before). It was figured out by watching Trunker, monitoring, some luck, some social engineering and some shared information. Since then, it has been changed by some submissions that are wild guesses at best and obviously not verified. It seems that the ones who edit the submitted corrections do not monitor in CT so there is no way to independently verify the info.

As I said, what is there allows the monitoring of the system. Most errors are talkgroup related (there are no 65xxx talkgroups, there is no "CSP-SW-1", etc) there are a couple of frequency/site errors (no 4b16 Site 8 anymore).

chris
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
95
Ok, Yeah, There are a few people who don't submit anything to the database, I'll agree with that. But honestly, What is the point of telling people on RR you have info if you're not going to submit it? And if people you've got info from don't want it disseminated further, Then maybe you shouldn't be telling people you have it??

I myself have contributed boatloads to the new london county database, I remember when it was practically nothing, When it started, I contributed about 50% of what it was when it first started a good accumulation of info.

Never the less, Don't bother telling us you have info, and then saying you won't submit it for a variety of reasons, That's pointless.
 

cg

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
3,084
Location
Connecticut
I was responding to a statement that the RR database for CSP was mostly complete, I know that it is not. If you would rather not know or feel it is pointless to know, that is certainly your choice.

If the CSP system is monitored using the frequencies in the database, as they scan the talkgroups listeners will hear traffic. The troop talkgroup numbers are still accurate (as they were when I submitted them years ago). Many District and statewide talkgroups (not Statewide but used across the state) were reallocated in the last two years. They weren't shut off, but just have different users.

chris
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
95
I'm not a novice, Don't forget that.

I know exactly what you were trying to point out, But my point is, Don't tell people that there's info that's incorrect if you're going to find a reason to avoid telling us SPECIFICALLY what is in correct.

As far as the CSP system, I know that there are certain channels that have been changed, Not used anymore, Whatever.

Like I said, I'm not a novice, Don't forget that. I've programmed more radios and scanners than most people have ever seen, So I know how to figure out what's what.


I'm not trying to be rude, But I'm just trying to point out that you may be confusing some of the users here who ARE novices when it comes to trying to figure out what's being used and what's not, So for future reference, Please don't bother telling us there's something that isn't right and having us try to guess what it might be, That's a waste of everyone's time.
 

cg

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
3,084
Location
Connecticut
I will continue to post as I feel. If I want to contribute certain information and withhold other I will (and I do). Look back through my posting history and see how many BS posts there are .... very few. I post decent info and I do it often. I will no longer post to the database for reasons already mentioned. If you feel it is wasting your time, that isn't my concern.
As far as I am concerned I am done with this thread.

chris
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
95
I've been aware of your posts for longer than you realize, and I know for a fact that they are NOT bs by any means, That's not what I've been saying. My only point here is "Why are you going to tell us that you have information and not post it?" Just don't tell us.

I agree with you posting as you feel, That's not a problem. Just don't bother telling us that you have something that you're not going to post, That's a real tease, and it gets very old, VERY FAST.

Lets get this thread back to what it was intended for, Enough with the bs about who posts what, Both of our opinions have been well known throughout this thread.

That said, I'm also done with this nonsense.
 

PJH

Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,509
I can tell you that all the talkgroups that have "Car" as the secondary talkgroups are no longer called that. Its just 01 A DISP 1, 02 A DISP 2, 03 B DISP 1, 04 B DISP 2, so on and so forth. Some of the channel numbers also have changed. I believe all the low power conventional stuff in the database is wrong...those channel numbers also changed.

I'll be making some cosmetic changes to the database as I have time to clear up stuff.

Many talkgroups have little traffic on them sich as the district wide talkgroups, 75 Patch, etc etc.

Only the BCI radios have the encypted talkgroups in them and are not used as much people think they are.

The long range goal of the system is to bring it upto APCO25 Phase 1 and to bring on other state agencies such as DOT, DEP etc. All comes down to $$
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
95
I can't wait till DEP gets on the system, They have some good traffic, but can almost never hear the mobile units. DOT as well, They have some interesting things going on.


Now if these agencies were to get on the system, Would it be possible that they'd add some more voice freq's in a few of the zones that would bear most of burden?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top