Grady Co. Sheriff Channel updated

Status
Not open for further replies.

PWillis

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Grady Co. Oklahoma
Recently GCSO changed not only their input freq but also the type of tone.

I have a Yaesu FT-60R and could always hit the Civil Defense channels and the S.O. channels. Now since the update all I can tag is still the civil defense channel (which is where we run on for fire service.) On the radio I changed the input freq and the tone type to DCS and the tone to 624. Still no luck on hitting the tower... Is there a differece in DPL and DCS if so what? Spoke to someone else about going from wide to narrow but still no luck on that either. Any suggestions? The old tone was like 118.8 and now to 624.
 

n5bew1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
733
Location
norman, ok
Recently GCSO changed not only their input freq but also the type of tone.

I have a Yaesu FT-60R and could always hit the Civil Defense channels and the S.O. channels. Now since the update all I can tag is still the civil defense channel (which is where we run on for fire service.) On the radio I changed the input freq and the tone type to DCS and the tone to 624. Still no luck on hitting the tower... Is there a differece in DPL and DCS if so what? Spoke to someone else about going from wide to narrow but still no luck on that either. Any suggestions? The old tone was like 118.8 and now to 624.
Could you give us the actual new input frequency ?
 

Secret_Squirrel

Tactical Communications Specialist
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
470
Location
Pryor Creek, OK
Recently GCSO changed not only their input freq but also the type of tone.

I have a Yaesu FT-60R and could always hit the Civil Defense channels and the S.O. channels. Now since the update all I can tag is still the civil defense channel (which is where we run on for fire service.) On the radio I changed the input freq and the tone type to DCS and the tone to 624. Still no luck on hitting the tower... Is there a differece in DPL and DCS if so what? Spoke to someone else about going from wide to narrow but still no luck on that either. Any suggestions? The old tone was like 118.8 and now to 624.
Uh oh. Another one his ham radio to ker-chunk public safety repeaters? Shame, shame. :)
 

n5bew1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
733
Location
norman, ok
Uh oh. Another one his ham radio to ker-chunk public safety repeaters? Shame, shame. :)
I never quite understood needing to know the PL or DPL unless one hears another service on the same channel and you just want to lock out interference You don't really need it just to listen on a scanner.
 

PWillis

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Grady Co. Oklahoma
Whats the difference of me talking on a FT-60R or talking on a department issued Relm handheld or Icom in the truck? There are times out in the field when you need to get ahold of the sheriffs office due to traffic control or other reasons.
 

n5bew1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
733
Location
norman, ok
Whats the difference of me talking on a FT-60R or talking on a department issued Relm handheld or Icom in the truck? There are times out in the field when you need to get ahold of the sheriffs office due to traffic control or other reasons.
Well the FT-60R is not FCC type accepted for commercial service but that hasn't been a stumbling block for a lot of people for a long time, I remember people using ham radios on police freqs for 20 years, But those radios technically are not approved for those services.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2004
Messages
1,217
Location
Tulsa
If he feels the need to talk on a non-approved radio then who cares. After all if the FCC decides to issue a big dollar NAL it won't be to the individual but the licensee that allowed such nonsense to take place on their watch. The licensee will most likely terminate the individual, file charges and get any professional certification revoked and then file a civil action to recoup the amount of the fines.

All Federal agencies are under a mandate to increase their revenue to the federal coffers. They FCC as other agencies are more successful at collecting big bucks from local government agencies than individuals.
 

Secret_Squirrel

Tactical Communications Specialist
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
470
Location
Pryor Creek, OK
If he feels the need to talk on a non-approved radio then who cares. After all if the FCC decides to issue a big dollar NAL it won't be to the individual but the licensee that allowed such nonsense to take place on their watch. The licensee will most likely terminate the individual, file charges and get any professional certification revoked and then file a civil action to recoup the amount of the fines.

All Federal agencies are under a mandate to increase their revenue to the federal coffers. They FCC as other agencies are more successful at collecting big bucks from local government agencies than individuals.
Reminds me of the Warner volunteer firemen who didn't know that fire trucks were supposed to have a license plate on them just like any other vehicle on the road.
 

n5usr

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
595
Location
Bethany, OK
If he feels the need to talk on a non-approved radio then who cares.
Amateur radio and scanner enthusiasts who care how their hobbies are perceived by law enforcement and other agencies?

Truly dedicated EMCOMM types (as opposed to whackers who are in it for a thrill) who don't wish to be excluded because of some individuals' immature - and illegal - behavior?

Members of the general public who would like to be able to listen to what their public safety agencies are doing, rather than said agencies going behind the wall of encrypted systems?

It isn't just about who is going to get a fine or sanction. There are many areas of the country where the powers that be have no interest in working with what they view as an irresponsible and unreliable group of people who just "get in the way". Even more areas where just having a radio or scanner on you while in the presence of law enforcement (say while eating in a restaurant, not necessarily on a crime scene) may get you attention you really don't want.

If the OP really has a legitimate need and authorization to talk on the repeaters in question, then that's fine - although he should instead be purchasing (or be assigned) a commercial radio into which he can program all the amateur frequencies he wants, although he again should be licensed to use them before transmitting. At least in that case hams are free to use commercial gear all they want.

However, most threads of this style result when someone gets a ham license, maybe does a little EMCOMM work, and their ego inflates. They decide surely since they have a license from the FCC there's nothing wrong with them modding their rig so they can talk back to the police / fire / whoever "just in case". If someone simply does it on their own, no one would know unless they got caught on the commercial repeater. But now, we have a thread on a public forum specifically asking for help with accessing the systems in question. Google for "grady co sheriff" now, and this thread is on the first page. Some official with the agency in question - or any other agency for that matter - could come across it, and point to it as another example of "why we don't want these people involved". Or worse, "why we should be using encrypted comms".
 

fireant

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
847
Location
Copland
You hit the nail right on the head, so many people come on and post things like this then complain when they encrypt radio transmissions. Then those of us who kept to our selves and did the right things are left to suffer. People need to think before they post things and use a ham radio for ham radio.

fireant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top