New Mexico DTRS

[Giddyuptd]

OK, now are you talking meaning that this is possibly Multi-Simulcast usage & Communications being used with the NMSP & possibly others switching & communicating on both P25 FDMA & P25 TDMA? If so, than it sounds like more & more NM Residents like me may need one of the new Uniden SDS Series Digital Scanners to help out with this.

When a system is setup that way if it detects a phase 1 radio it will kick everyone to phase 1 for a talk group etc for interoperability. Eventually going back to phase 2. Common on some systems when upgrading is occurring to latest.

It is a given as technology progresses in these systems it isn't a matter of if but when a switch has occurred to higher level of latest system technology which has been said what is going to happen down the road.

 

[kc5igh]

They could be using Dynamic Dual Mode.

"Dynamic Dual Mode, an optional feature, allows users to interoperate between P25 FDMA and P25 TDMA services. It is part of the call processing application and uses an advanced control channel that dynamically switches call assignments between FDMA and TDMA. Dynamic Dual Mode is seamless to users and requires no intervention from users or network operators. For example, if a user in an active P25 TDMA talkgroup call roams onto a P25 FDMA-only site, the system automatically initiates P25 FDMA mode at the next push-to-talk (PTT). Or if an active P25 TDMA talkgroup call is underway at a site and a P25 FDMA-only member of the talkgroup joins (or “affiliates”) with the call, the system automatically switches the call to P25 FDMA mode at the next PTT. The FDMA-only user is now included in the call, and the call switched without any user intervention or awareness."

Thanks for the very well-written, concise description, RIVER_5.

-Johnnie (KC5IGH)

 

[RIVER_5]

Thanks for the very well-written, concise description, RIVER_5.

-Johnnie (KC5IGH)

Wish I could take credit for that however, I found it on my Motorola drive folder. Figured it might help out some people here on the forums monitoring the system.

 

[kc5igh]

OK, now are you talking meaning that this is possibly Multi-Simulcast usage & Communications being used with the NMSP & possibly others switching & communicating on both P25 FDMA & P25 TDMA? If so, than it sounds like more & more NM Residents like me may need one of the new Uniden SDS Series Digital Scanners to help out with this.

I believe some of the sites in Albuquerque may already be using Linear Simulcast Modulation, while others are not. If that's so, you'll certainly want to consider the Uniden SDS-series scanners or Unication G-series pagers for simulcast transmissions.

On the other hand, older scanners, such as Uniden's BCD436HP and BCD325P2 and the Whistler TRX-1, are available that can already handle both Phase 1 (FDMA) and Phase 2 (TDMA).

Happy monitoring!

-Johnnie (KC5IGH)

 

[kc5igh]

Wish I could take credit for that however, I found it on my Motorola drive folder. Figured it might help out some people here on the forums monitoring the system.

No problem, RIVER-5! As a former writer/editor, I sometimes worked with information that was so well-written it simply couldn't be improved.

-Johnnie (KC5IGH)

 

[GhostStater]

Monitoring the Caballo Peak Site for NM DTRS and not hearing much activity on it yet. Have heard NMSU 30011 some. Recently hearing "Spaceport Intercom" Talk Group ID 223 discussing air space use with small aircraft in the spaceport area.

 

[tvengr]

I did some extrapolation of the NM State Police district talkgroups and this is what it should be for the 12 districts:

DEC	Alpha Tag
101	NMSP1 SantFe Dsp
102	NMSP1 SantFe C2C
103	NMSP2 LasVeg Dsp
104	NMSP2 LasVeg C2C
105	NMSP3 Roswll Dsp
106	NMSP3 Roswll C2C
107	NMSP4 LasCru Dsp
108	NMSP4 LasCru C2C
109	NMSP5 Albuq Dsp
110	NMSP5 Albuq C2C
111	NMSP6 Gallup Dsp
112	NMSP6 Gallup C2C
113	NMSP7 Espan Dsp
114	NMSP7 Espan C2C
115	NMSP8 Alamo Dsp
116	NMSP8 Alamo C2C
117	NMSP9 Clovis Dsp
118	NMSP9 Clovis C2C
119	NMSP10 Farm Dsp
120	NMSP10 Farm C2C
121	NMSP11 Socor Dsp
122	NMSP11 Socor C2C
123	NMSP12 Demng Dsp
124	NMSP12 Demng C2C
131	NMSP SpecEvent 1
132	NMSP SpecEvent 2
133	NMSP SpecEvent 3
134	NMSP SpecEvent 4
135	NMSP SpecEvent 5
136	NMSP SpecEvent 6
137	NMSP SpecEvent 7
138	NMSP SpecEvent 8
139	NMSP SpecEvent 9
140	NMSP SpecEvent10
150	NMSP Supervisor

 

[kc5igh]

I did some extrapolation of the NM State Police district talkgroups and this is what it should be for the 12 districts:

DEC	Alpha Tag
101	NMSP1 SantFe Dsp
102	NMSP1 SantFe C2C
103	NMSP2 LasVeg Dsp
104	NMSP2 LasVeg C2C
105	NMSP3 Roswll Dsp
106	NMSP3 Roswll C2C
107	NMSP4 LasCru Dsp
108	NMSP4 LasCru C2C
109	NMSP5 Albuq Dsp
110	NMSP5 Albuq C2C
111	NMSP6 Gallup Dsp
112	NMSP6 Gallup C2C
113	NMSP7 Espan Dsp
114	NMSP7 Espan C2C
115	NMSP8 Alamo Dsp
116	NMSP8 Alamo C2C
117	NMSP9 Clovis Dsp
118	NMSP9 Clovis C2C
119	NMSP10 Farm Dsp
120	NMSP10 Farm C2C
121	NMSP11 Socor Dsp
122	NMSP11 Socor C2C
123	NMSP12 Demng Dsp
124	NMSP12 Demng C2C
131	NMSP SpecEvent 1
132	NMSP SpecEvent 2
133	NMSP SpecEvent 3
134	NMSP SpecEvent 4
135	NMSP SpecEvent 5
136	NMSP SpecEvent 6
137	NMSP SpecEvent 7
138	NMSP SpecEvent 8
139	NMSP SpecEvent 9
140	NMSP SpecEvent10
150	NMSP Supervisor

That's interesting! What do you mean by "extrapolation?"

Many of those talkgroup ID's have already been identified and monitored, but I'm wondering what you did to identify the TG's that haven't.

Thanks!

-Johnnie (KC5IGH)

 

[tvengr]

I'm wondering what you did to identify the TG's that haven't.

Looking at the order of the existing talkgroups and the number of holes, I feel that it is a safe bet that the remaining districts are in order and the missing talkgroups fit perfectly into the holes between the existing talkgroups.

 

[kc5igh]

Looking at the order of the existing talkgroups and the number of holes, I feel that it is a safe bet that the remaining districts are in order and the missing talkgroups fit perfectly into the holes between the existing talkgroups.

Thanks! I guess time will tell if that's what they've got planned for those talkgroups.

I'm really curious to see where they go next with the State Police radio traffic on the digital system.

 

[KE5ZBG]

I have occasionally logged 114 and 121, which fits with current coverage.

 

[Giddyuptd]

I have occasionally logged 114 and 121, which fits with current coverage.

Interesting as socorro is still vhf, and sometimes patched with district 8 overnight on dispatch side during low peak hours.

 

[CorwinScansNM]

Just a quick heads up. I have been noticing more & more total silencing lately due to the big (E) in use & I am sure others here on this Forum have as well. I've noticed it quite much, more & more lately. Primarily with the Bernalillo County Talkgroups on the NM DTRS such as the BCSO East as well as the BCFD Fire Tac Channels. My Scanner, being the BCD536HP will land on those BC Talkgroups & just sit on them with the Signal strength Meter steady & flashing at the top of my Scanner while there is absolutely no Audio Transmissions coming through on the BC Talkgroups & just total silence & for Hours at a time not hearing anything. The big (E) is here unfortunately & is working very well for the Police & Fire Departments like they have wanted for Years & Years up to this Date at a whopping $43.5 Million Dollars...

 

[ChrisABQ]

Using SDRTrunk here and receive all transmissions. All BCSO, BCFD, AFR and APD. You might be experiencing the dreaded simulcast issue.

 

[CorwinScansNM]

Using SDRTrunk here and receive all transmissions. All BCSO, BCFD, AFR and APD. You might be experiencing the dreaded simulcast issue.

That would be good news for me on my end in that case rather than the other dreaded full (E) which is what I was guessing was the real receiving problem on my BCD536HP. I would have to consider upgrading to a SDS200 if this is true & the reason for my Scanner picking up nothing except for total silencing on the BC Talkgroups that are not all yet shown or posted as fully Encrypted.

Thanks ChrisABQ for your valuable post & Feedback here.

 

[natedawg1604]

That would be good news for me on my end in that case rather than the other dreaded full (E) which is what I was guessing was the real receiving problem on my BCD536HP. I would have to consider upgrading to a SDS200 if this is true & the reason for my Scanner picking up nothing except for total silencing on the BC Talkgroups that are not all yet shown or posted as fully Encrypted.

Thanks ChrisABQ for your valuable post & Feedback here.

Get yourself an RTL SDR dongle with Unitrunker, this will allow to monitor/log a site (or multiple sites) 24/7, it also tells you which Radios/TG's are using ENC and many other things.

 

[ChrisABQ]

I agree with natedawg on the RTL dongle's. I use a different program, but all transmissions are recorded and available using Trunking Recorder's web server which allows me to listen using my laptop or phone (on the go). Listen to any or all TG's and never have to deal with simulcast distortion. I could listen in Australia if I wanted. Being able to log new talkgroups, sites and listening to ALL transmissions as they come in is FAR better than any scanner is capable of. Much less $$$ as well.

 

[Giddyuptd]

You're having the simulcast issue with the x36. Either sds or the sdr deal mentioned. Regardless the dreaded thing is a inevitable path a ways down road for a lot of traffic but till then Carne is Carne

 

[Lebowski]

I may have heard that the AG Law Enforcement folks are coming onto DTRS. I'm guessing they will be all E though.

 

[Giddyuptd]

AG and DA will always be secure. Most used DES back in analog days or AES on analog setups. Some would turn it off but those loop holes have been resolved from user error.

As for the 436 the last update of firmware I noticed no simulcast issues on it. Not sure what changed if any but I have yet to have this issue on the el pasp system or Albuquerque.