I just heard an Automated Dispatch on 6215 so you were right.
Needing More Help with Identifying the Talkgroups for UCA p25 700mhz
- Thread starter enosjones
- Start date
Soooo...Utah County does have some encryption it seems. I'm guessing these channels are for 11J units - 5972 and 5974 because the RIDs are all over the place (and not just Utah County TGs). Honestly, can't say I blame them. Better than using the old Events TGs in the clear.
Sorry, me again - noticed an interesting correlation while going through patches tonight. I wasn't sure why every fire TG was linked/patched to another. Then I noticed the same thing with law TGs.
Each of these TGs has a VHF equivalent...wondering if the 5905-5912 are VHF links of some sort? In fact, VHF law is still active - currently hearing Utah Co Law 3 right now on 156.135 and it's clear as day. And it would make sense that since Law 2 doesn't have a VHF equivalent, it's not patched.
I wonder if that's what they did for every agency in the state, and that's why there are so many TGs patched together left and right. VHF links grouped together with digital talkgroups.
Code:
5905 <=> 5936 | Fire 2
5906 <=> 5937 | Fire 3
5907 <=> 5938 | Fire 4
5908 <=> 5939 | Fire 5
5909 <=> 5921 | Law 1
5910 <=> 5923 | Law 3
5912 <=> 5929 | Utah Co Service
5911 <=> 5931 | Utah Co SAREach of these TGs has a VHF equivalent...wondering if the 5905-5912 are VHF links of some sort? In fact, VHF law is still active - currently hearing Utah Co Law 3 right now on 156.135 and it's clear as day. And it would make sense that since Law 2 doesn't have a VHF equivalent, it's not patched.
I wonder if that's what they did for every agency in the state, and that's why there are so many TGs patched together left and right. VHF links grouped together with digital talkgroups.
We still have UHF here in Box Elder, but in my experience, the static and hiss has just gotten worse since the switch over, to the point that a conventional scanner is useless for my trusty old 155.595 Mhz. I wish I could clean that audio up.
check to see if u occasionally see p25 P1 or if its all P2..
Looks like Salt Lake City PD came online this morning as 100% encrypted...wasn't even a moment when it wasn't secure (at least according to my logs). Good luck to everyone attempting to figure out TGs...
Figuring out talk groups at this point is futile.
Sandy Fire Dispatch/Page is 567
I don't know if it is my scanner but listening to Davis on my BCD325P2 misses a lot of the calls. My SDS100 does just fine.
If I were to guess, I would say 551, 552, 553, 554 are SLC PD, they are encrypted. This falling inline with SLC and Sandy Fire adjacent numbering so far. But then again, is Sandy going to have at least some encryption?
Last edited:
My 996P2 and my 325P2 were doing the same thing. In fact on certain frequencies, the audio was very choppy and impossible to tell what they were saying. I switched over to a pure SDR Trunk setup with four dongles to monitor CCs and audio, and there's been no problem whatsoever...which leads me to believe that the P2s do indeed have issues with simulcast systems.
You'd think that since Sandy is dispatched by Salt Lake, they would have gone encrypted at the same time SLC went live. Who knows.
When I was there last week, all of my Unidens were pretty much deaf, but the G5 and SDR were both picking up more traffic than I can handle listening to.
I use a BHI Hear It DSP noisce cancellation external speaker, cleans up the static and hiss nicely.
Last edited:
My SDS200 is following the traffic with no issues. I am using an TRX-2 and a SDS100 for comparisons. When programming the SDS units, I turned the "filters" to "off". Maybe that will help?
West Jordan PD Dispatch is 2885, verified.
SJ PD 2282 verified, also Riverton and Herriman PD
UPD Oquirrh 2883 Verified
UPD Wasatch 2884 verified
UPD Oquirrh 2883 Verified
UPD Wasatch 2884 verified
Last edited:
West Valley PD Disp 2880 verified
Think you want 2882 for Riverton, etc.
Junior1970
Member
I'm on the outside looking in with the new system as I wanted to see what could still be monitored in the P25 world here in UCA land before I cough up dough for a new radio.
But the research I have read so far is that anything other than a Uniden SDS100/SDS200 has issues with P25 in monitoring simulcast sites.
This has been confirmed with others around the country.
My 536 HP has worked fine on my local site and UC Simo, but I think performance is very location dependent, so it might be a risk if you can't test. If you do not need to monitor one of the simulcast sites, you can probably get away with an older Phase 2 scanner.
Similar threads
