BCD325P2: Locking out a TGID

kb1zbh

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
11
Location
New Britain CT
Hi
New to use of digital scanners. Big difference from conventional. I live in New Britain CT. I understand the whole CLRM system, and the fact that some PD's (including New Britain) are operating fully encrypted. I have 854.3625, 855.9625, 856.2125, 857.2125, 858.2125, 859.2125 programmed to monitor NB Fire. I have them using TGID's 18921, 18922, 18923, 18927. All that works. Problem I'm having is I also keep receiving TGID's 18901 - 18908 on those frequencies which are the encrypted PD TGID's. I hit lockout when I get the garbled transmissions, but it appears to be only temporary. I searched my programming for any instances of the encrypted TGID's but couldn't find them anywhere. I had a brain storm to add them to the New Britain TGID list, and then lock them out. Still receiving them. Any suggestions?
 

cg

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
3,653
Location
Connecticut
The 325 has a temporary lockout feature. Single click for temporary lockout, double click for permanent lockout. Temporary lockout clears when the power is cycled. So when you see the NBPD, hit the lockout button twice and it should be set.
As far as programming them in, I always program every group in a system and use the quick keys to control what I hear. Every system is programmed the same so QK 1 is Fire, QK 2 is PD, 3 is EMS, 4 DPW, etc. So regardless of the system, the QK is the same number for the same agency.
Last, you have ID Search and ID Scan, controlled by FUNC, SCAN. The ID Search, looks for new groups and the ID Scan only monitors those that are programmed in.

chris
 

GTR8000

NYS Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
9,294
Location
BEE00
Hi
New to use of digital scanners. Big difference from conventional. I live in New Britain CT. I understand the whole CLRM system, and the fact that some PD's (including New Britain) are operating fully encrypted. I have 854.3625, 855.9625, 856.2125, 857.2125, 858.2125, 859.2125 programmed to monitor NB Fire. I have them using TGID's 18921, 18922, 18923, 18927. All that works. Problem I'm having is I also keep receiving TGID's 18901 - 18908 on those frequencies which are the encrypted PD TGID's. I hit lockout when I get the garbled transmissions, but it appears to be only temporary. I searched my programming for any instances of the encrypted TGID's but couldn't find them anywhere. I had a brain storm to add them to the New Britain TGID list, and then lock them out. Still receiving them. Any suggestions?
Do you have the New Britain Simulcast programmed as a P25 trunked system, or did you program the 800 MHz frequencies as conventional channels?

Make sure the scanner is in ID Scan mode, not ID Search mode, and it also doesn't hurt to program the talkgroups you never want to hear, and to permanently lock them out.
 

n1chu

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
845
Location
Farmington, Connecticut
Do you have the scanner on ID Search? If so , turn it off. That should allow only for TG’s you have specified to be turned on and heard. It appears you are hearing every TG on the system. I live in Farmington, next door to New Britain, Ct. and have no issues with the system. But simply programming only the FD TG’s won’t help if you have ID search turned on. I also have the 325P2, a SDS100 and a couple of the SDS200’s. None of them hear the encrypted NBPD... but Uniden has encorporated a feature into their newer scanners that ignores most forms of encryption... the scanner simply continues scanning after it sees the transmission is encrypted, in an attempt to follow FCC mandates that scanners should not only NOT be able to un-encrypt, they should not even be able to monitor an encrypted transmission... even though what may be heard is unintelligible. (How they enforce this is questionable however, since it would mean you would literally have to swear in writing you deliberately listen to encrypted signals!) There are those who do the next best thing when an agency goes fully encrypted-they listen for increased activity of encrypted transmissions (illegal). (I don’t advise this and do not practice it.) And when hearing this increased activity think something must be happening. This causes them to more actively listen to surrounding towns and regional hotlines that are not encrypted, in an attempt to discern what’s going on in the town that’s encrypted. The general consensus is this; short of shadowing the police and staying within earshot of an encrypted radio, it’s all that’s left to scanner enthusiasts bent on learning what’s so extremely important that it must be encrypted.
 

GTR8000

NYS Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
9,294
Location
BEE00
but Uniden has encorporated a feature into their newer scanners that ignores most forms of encryption... the scanner simply continues scanning after it sees the transmission is encrypted, in an attempt to follow FCC mandates that scanners should not only NOT be able to un-encrypt, they should not even be able to monitor an encrypted transmission... even though what may be heard is unintelligible. (How they enforce this is questionable however, since it would mean you would literally have to swear in writing you deliberately listen to encrypted signals!) There are those who do the next best thing when an agency goes fully encrypted-they listen for increased activity of encrypted transmissions (illegal). (I don’t advise this and do not practice it.)
What the heck are you talking about? None of this makes any sense. Please cite a reference to this alleged FCC mandate that states it is illegal to merely have a scanner/receiver parked on a frequency/talkgroup that may carry encrypted transmissions.

Uniden did not have their scanners skip over encrypted transmissions to comply with some mandate, but rather so it wouldn't be annoying and obnoxious to hear garbled nonsense when the scanner stopped on an encrypted transmission. That's all, it was a matter of common sense. I believe that the GRE/Whistler scanners give you the option of skipping over, playing a busy signal, or doing nothing and letting the encrypted garble come out the speaker if that's what you really want.

In any event, the claims you made in your post are unfounded.
 

n1chu

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
845
Location
Farmington, Connecticut
What the heck are you talking about? None of this makes any sense. Please cite a reference to this alleged FCC mandate that states it is illegal to merely have a scanner/receiver parked on a frequency/talkgroup that may carry encrypted transmissions.

Uniden did not have their scanners skip over encrypted transmissions to comply with some mandate, but rather so it wouldn't be annoying and obnoxious to hear garbled nonsense when the scanner stopped on an encrypted transmission. That's all, it was a matter of common sense. I believe that the GRE/Whistler scanners give you the option of skipping over, playing a busy signal, or doing nothing and letting the encrypted garble come out the speaker if that's what you really want.

In any event, the claims you made in your post are unfounded.
Wrong. You need to research the latest amendments to the FCC Act of 1934 and all attachments thereof.
 

fxdscon

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
4,970
Wrong. You need to research the latest amendments to the FCC Act of 1934 and all attachments thereof.
Since you are the one that has made this ridiculous claim in several threads now, it’s on you to post your sources.
 

kb1zbh

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
11
Location
New Britain CT
Thank you guys for the responses. GTR8000, CG - I believe it is set to ID Search rather than ID Scan. I'll change that to see if it helps. N1CHU - That's not a bad idea. Thanks to all
 

n1chu

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
845
Location
Farmington, Connecticut
Glad to help. If you run into trouble I’m close by. You can email me.
Since you are the one that has made this ridiculous claim in several threads now, it’s on you to post your sources.
...simply reciting the FCC. But where you get the idea it’s on me to post my source is a good one. I did the research which wasn’t easy. Anyone who doubts can discredit by showing proof. It’s you that needs to prove me wrong, not the other way around. To date no one had done that. I agree, it’s problematic that you haven’t found anything that discredits what I have posted, and I would be the first to apologize if that were the case.

The FCC Act of 1934, as amended, took me to the ECPA. And from there to pages and pages of more boilerplate... sorry I didn’t copy where I found it but it’s there. Bob Grove of Monitoring Times fame got me started on this when he was invited to address congress on scanning activity. He thought it was purely his expertise they were after but instead he got ambushed. It seemed there was one congressman, Newt Gingrich, who got accused of violating the rules pertaining to classified information. He used an unauthorized analogue cell phone to discuss classified or sensitive material and got caught when a scanner enthusiast recorded his intercepted phone call. He got caught and used the congressional hearings to deflect blame away from himself. In the process of his squirming out of his predicament the ECPA was either born or amended, I don’t remember which. Shortly thereafter manufacturers where notified of new or additional restrictions regarding the manufacturing of scanners. That’s where the FCC included the requirement for scanners to ignore encryption. I seem to remember there was some FCC acceptable alternate interpretations of this requirement due to the difficulties in radio designs. But it was this that enticed Uniden to implement its incorporation where they could . Uniden doesn’t do anything they don’t have to... I don’t buy your take on Uniden doing it out of their great concern for us when there was already the means to eliminate bothersome encryption delays... it’s the “Avoid” function.
 

KevinC

Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2001
Messages
5,891
Location
Somewhere other than home :(
Glad to help. If you run into trouble I’m close by. You can email me.

...simply reciting the FCC. But where you get the idea it’s on me to post my source is a good one. I did the research which wasn’t easy. Anyone who doubts can discredit by showing proof. It’s you that needs to prove me wrong, not the other way around. To date no one had done that. I agree, it’s problematic that you haven’t found anything that discredits what I have posted, and I would be the first to apologize if that were the case.

The FCC Act of 1934, as amended, took me to the ECPA. And from there to pages and pages of more boilerplate... sorry I didn’t copy where I found it but it’s there. Bob Grove of Monitoring Times fame got me started on this when he was invited to address congress on scanning activity. He thought it was purely his expertise they were after but instead he got ambushed. It seemed there was one congressman, Newt Gingrich, who got accused of violating the rules pertaining to classified information. He used an unauthorized analogue cell phone to discuss classified or sensitive material and got caught when a scanner enthusiast recorded his intercepted phone call. He got caught and used the congressional hearings to deflect blame away from himself. In the process of his squirming out of his predicament the ECPA was either born or amended, I don’t remember which. Shortly thereafter manufacturers where notified of new or additional restrictions regarding the manufacturing of scanners. That’s where the FCC included the requirement for scanners to ignore encryption. I seem to remember there was some FCC acceptable alternate interpretations of this requirement due to the difficulties in radio designs. But it was this that enticed Uniden to implement its incorporation where they could . Uniden doesn’t do anything they don’t have to... I don’t buy your take on Uniden doing it out of their great concern for us when there was already the means to eliminate bothersome encryption delays... it’s the “Avoid” function.
Seriously???? Didn't I just say to stay on topic???? Jeez!!!!
 
Top