From what I gather, this is one system for both DoC sites, and Sussex County. One CC, 10 frequency pairs.
Sussex Co./VSP/Prisons 700 mhz. Interop
- Thread starter W4UVV
- Start date
- Status
W4UVV
Member
That's what WQTZ561 implies
-----------------------
My interpretation is this is one trs with 5 sites; Sussex Co. SO,Waverly PD, VSP Office Rt. 460 Waverly, Sussex Max Prison I/II and Greensville Prison. Although I am not sure about all transmissions regardless of source, being simulcasted via all system towers. My guess is they are but that needs confirmation either way.
We will have to monitor and document what the participation level is from the site users. Yesterday I logged talkgroups 1033, 1090 and 1833. Whomever they were their comms were short with two of the talkgroups having a loud ambient background noise and above a normal voice level talking which is consistent with comms occurring inside a prison facility.
Your post of 5 pairs of talkgroups for Sussex Max I/II? and DOC Greensville Prison needs to be explained more in detail. "Sussex" also can apply to the county who also is a trs user. "5 pairs" can be interpreted as 10 unique talkgroups per institution or two groups of 5 talkgroups one unique to each institution. Which is correct or none is correct? Is it a total of 20 talkgroups available for use between the two prisons?
As you know if something can be interpreted more than one way, it will happen. If you could be more specific it would help. Tnx.
John
W4UVV
-----------------------
My interpretation is this is one trs with 5 sites; Sussex Co. SO,Waverly PD, VSP Office Rt. 460 Waverly, Sussex Max Prison I/II and Greensville Prison. Although I am not sure about all transmissions regardless of source, being simulcasted via all system towers. My guess is they are but that needs confirmation either way.
We will have to monitor and document what the participation level is from the site users. Yesterday I logged talkgroups 1033, 1090 and 1833. Whomever they were their comms were short with two of the talkgroups having a loud ambient background noise and above a normal voice level talking which is consistent with comms occurring inside a prison facility.
Your post of 5 pairs of talkgroups for Sussex Max I/II? and DOC Greensville Prison needs to be explained more in detail. "Sussex" also can apply to the county who also is a trs user. "5 pairs" can be interpreted as 10 unique talkgroups per institution or two groups of 5 talkgroups one unique to each institution. Which is correct or none is correct? Is it a total of 20 talkgroups available for use between the two prisons?
As you know if something can be interpreted more than one way, it will happen. If you could be more specific it would help. Tnx.
John
W4UVV
W4UVV
Member
Talk-groups
My early list shows 1000-1040 as Sussex County. There are multiple TGs for each prison. I may not be at liberty to post their TG IDs, even though anyone else can figure them out. 1833, I have no idea.
My early list shows 1000-1040 as Sussex County. There are multiple TGs for each prison. I may not be at liberty to post their TG IDs, even though anyone else can figure them out. 1833, I have no idea.
W4UVV
Member
TRS Talkgroups
Vern,
Ok..tnx...understood. same situation as FCI Petersburg...some talkgroups used only in emergency situations. So, making a basic leap of logic with limited talkgroup info so far, the Sussex Co. SO has 40 talkgroups as possibly also does Sussex Max I/II and Greensville Prison or possibly a lesser number. That's a basic template premise from which to start.
Another new talkgroup 1031 just popped up encrypted.
To recap so far::
Sussex Co.
1031 = SO (Enc.)
1033 = SIRS link
-----------
(If TG >1040 = DOC) ("DOC" implies a correctional facility i.e., Sussex Max I/II or Greensville Prison)
DOC/VSP?
1090 = DOC?
1833 = DOC?
---------------------
Tnx for your time and help Vern. I really appreciate it.
John
W4UVV
--------------------
Vern,
Ok..tnx...understood. same situation as FCI Petersburg...some talkgroups used only in emergency situations. So, making a basic leap of logic with limited talkgroup info so far, the Sussex Co. SO has 40 talkgroups as possibly also does Sussex Max I/II and Greensville Prison or possibly a lesser number. That's a basic template premise from which to start.
Another new talkgroup 1031 just popped up encrypted.
To recap so far::
Sussex Co.
1031 = SO (Enc.)
1033 = SIRS link
-----------
(If TG >1040 = DOC) ("DOC" implies a correctional facility i.e., Sussex Max I/II or Greensville Prison)
DOC/VSP?
1090 = DOC?
1833 = DOC?
---------------------
Tnx for your time and help Vern. I really appreciate it.
John
W4UVV
Sussex TGs
Well, there are only 16-20 named, but 40 reserved, is how I would put it.
Well, there are only 16-20 named, but 40 reserved, is how I would put it.
reconrider8
Member
im planning on riding up to Jarrett in the next couple days to see what i can map out. what is the control for the Jarrett tower?
770.85625 is the present CC for the entire TRS. Cut-over is scheduled for Thursday AM. There not much activity now, although I have locked out several DoC talkgroups in the last couple of weeks.
reconrider8
Member
can we confirm that its a P1 system and not something else? i have unitrunker setup and locked on the frequency but its not decoding at all and when someone keys up and the sound changes it shows its an NXDN48 system but i cant believe that
edit: after unitrunker wasnt decoding i setup procom and am currently running it now. i can confirm that as of now it is a P2 system and not a P1 system
edit: after unitrunker wasnt decoding i setup procom and am currently running it now. i can confirm that as of now it is a P2 system and not a P1 system
Last edited:
clbsquared
Member
I was under the assumption that it was Phase 2.
Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
W4UVV
Member
The system is working as designed
As best as I can determine from daily monitoring for the past 4-5 days the system is working as designed.It is a P25 standard trs. I am using ARC536PRO using Virtual Control to log all talkgroup activity which is infrequent and much is encrypted and used by the Sussex Co. SO. P1 and P2 emission modes are not separately ided on my 536. I suspect it is all currently P1.
As has previously been posted this is a P1/P2 multi-site trs using the same 10 frequencies as determined by the system controller for ALL 5 sites. ALL the frequencies are common to ALL 5 sites. The default CC has been and continues to date to be 770.8562 mhz.
Unless the TG range is confirmed for Sussex Max I/II and Greensville Prison, there is no way to tell what voice comms are originating from what prison. The comms heard are short and often the calling party is not heard. I don't think it is a half duplex encrypted transmission comm. Until the system has a larger talkgroup user population, it is difficult to make much of the little activity heard so far.
Unitrunker? I thought it and Trunktracker finally died years ago. Good Luck dealing with that. I still have a 2 and a 4 level data splitter both custom made which worked fine from those old Trunktracker days I should sell.
As of today here is a recap of what I have heard and/or what has been logged by the 536ARCPRO Vitual Control feature:
Sussex Co. (I suspect all these encrypted talkgroups are just regular daily operation comms of the Sheriff's Office and not system interop comms)
1003
1023
1031
1032
1033
1035
DOC Sussex Max I/II or Greensville Prison (Unable to id from which one)
1090
1091
1094
VSP?
1833
As you can see not much activity and the monitoring results produced so far are rather pitiful.
John
W4UVV
As best as I can determine from daily monitoring for the past 4-5 days the system is working as designed.It is a P25 standard trs. I am using ARC536PRO using Virtual Control to log all talkgroup activity which is infrequent and much is encrypted and used by the Sussex Co. SO. P1 and P2 emission modes are not separately ided on my 536. I suspect it is all currently P1.
As has previously been posted this is a P1/P2 multi-site trs using the same 10 frequencies as determined by the system controller for ALL 5 sites. ALL the frequencies are common to ALL 5 sites. The default CC has been and continues to date to be 770.8562 mhz.
Unless the TG range is confirmed for Sussex Max I/II and Greensville Prison, there is no way to tell what voice comms are originating from what prison. The comms heard are short and often the calling party is not heard. I don't think it is a half duplex encrypted transmission comm. Until the system has a larger talkgroup user population, it is difficult to make much of the little activity heard so far.
Unitrunker? I thought it and Trunktracker finally died years ago. Good Luck dealing with that. I still have a 2 and a 4 level data splitter both custom made which worked fine from those old Trunktracker days I should sell.
As of today here is a recap of what I have heard and/or what has been logged by the 536ARCPRO Vitual Control feature:
Sussex Co. (I suspect all these encrypted talkgroups are just regular daily operation comms of the Sheriff's Office and not system interop comms)
1003
1023
1031
1032
1033
1035
DOC Sussex Max I/II or Greensville Prison (Unable to id from which one)
1090
1091
1094
VSP?
1833
As you can see not much activity and the monitoring results produced so far are rather pitiful.
John
W4UVV
W4UVV
Member
It is a P1 and P2 Standard P25 trs
It is a P1 and P2 Standard P25 trs. Check out these two emission codes authorized for WQTZ561 at the below links:
Emissions Authorized:
8K10F1E= Phase 1
9K80D7W = Phase 2
ULS License - Trunked Public Safety 700 MHz License - WQTZ561 - VIRGINIA, COMMONWEALTH OF - Frequencies Summary
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Emission_Designator
John
W4UVV
---------------------------
It is a P1 and P2 Standard P25 trs. Check out these two emission codes authorized for WQTZ561 at the below links:
Emissions Authorized:
8K10F1E= Phase 1
9K80D7W = Phase 2
ULS License - Trunked Public Safety 700 MHz License - WQTZ561 - VIRGINIA, COMMONWEALTH OF - Frequencies Summary
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Emission_Designator
John
W4UVV
reconrider8
Member
I understand it's a mix system. What I don't understand is why unitrunker didn't show the decoded info when it said it was decoding when procom decoded perfectly. O well I've never heard a cc sound that way either though so that could be that issue
All the time I was there I never heard a bleep of talking across my whistler 1040 so I'm thinking it's more p2 rather then 1
All the time I was there I never heard a bleep of talking across my whistler 1040 so I'm thinking it's more p2 rather then 1
W4UVV
Member
Interesting
It's interesting you comment about never hearing a CC sound like that. I was curious as to what CC audio sounded like on one of my R7000 analog receivers. I also was surprised that it did sound noticeably different that the typical P25 P1 CC. I don't have any other P2 within my monitoring area. This also may be what a typical P1/P2 CC sounds like.
I also noticed that my 536 was not muting the encrypted audio. I am not aware of any user option to select regarding muting. Curious as to what more 700 signals were active I also picked up a decent signal strength CC on 774.5325 mhz. To my surprise it also had the same sounding audio as 770.8562 mhz. A FCC search was negative. It is not an image of 770.8562 as that signal is 5 bars but not extremely strong here. Then I noticed at times 770.8562 mhz. ocassionally was approximately 20 khz in bandwidth. Maybe that was because the system also has frequent data links.
I may create a couple of test cc trs in the 536 for 774,5325 mhz. and run PRO96COM and see what if anything happens.
John
W4UVV
------------------
It's interesting you comment about never hearing a CC sound like that. I was curious as to what CC audio sounded like on one of my R7000 analog receivers. I also was surprised that it did sound noticeably different that the typical P25 P1 CC. I don't have any other P2 within my monitoring area. This also may be what a typical P1/P2 CC sounds like.
I also noticed that my 536 was not muting the encrypted audio. I am not aware of any user option to select regarding muting. Curious as to what more 700 signals were active I also picked up a decent signal strength CC on 774.5325 mhz. To my surprise it also had the same sounding audio as 770.8562 mhz. A FCC search was negative. It is not an image of 770.8562 as that signal is 5 bars but not extremely strong here. Then I noticed at times 770.8562 mhz. ocassionally was approximately 20 khz in bandwidth. Maybe that was because the system also has frequent data links.
I may create a couple of test cc trs in the 536 for 774,5325 mhz. and run PRO96COM and see what if anything happens.
John
W4UVV
W4UVV
Member
536 and P2 encrypted audio
------------------
FYI to all, the 536 will not mute P2 encrypted transmissions. So a leap of logic can be made that most, if not all of Sussex Co. comms are P2 and not all talkgroups are encrypted. I think I heard one DOC encrypted earlier today but most of the comms are very short and to put it kindly, most of the unencrypted audio quality heard leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe in time that be rectified by the techs or maybe that's just the way it is.
So although P1 and P2 both are authorized, the actual audio emission used will be 100% P2. Maybe with more TG user activity we can determine more details.
Also FYI system type "P25 X2 TDMA" also works fine as does "P25 Standard".
John
W4UVV
------------------
FYI to all, the 536 will not mute P2 encrypted transmissions. So a leap of logic can be made that most, if not all of Sussex Co. comms are P2 and not all talkgroups are encrypted. I think I heard one DOC encrypted earlier today but most of the comms are very short and to put it kindly, most of the unencrypted audio quality heard leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe in time that be rectified by the techs or maybe that's just the way it is.
So although P1 and P2 both are authorized, the actual audio emission used will be 100% P2. Maybe with more TG user activity we can determine more details.
Also FYI system type "P25 X2 TDMA" also works fine as does "P25 Standard".
John
W4UVV
clbsquared
Member
Let's not forget that most of the equipment sat in storage for a couple years. And we all know what happens to electronics when they sit in mediocre climate controlled storage. That could be the cause of poor audio. Maybe not.
Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
reconrider8
Member
https://i.imgur.com/QppDgHb.png thats a pic of what i got today on procom
https://i.imgur.com/EClASQI.png theres another
https://i.imgur.com/EClASQI.png theres another
W4UVV
Member
A week's recap of monitoring & observations/comments
1. Some of my past week's monitoring findings, comments, and observations:
2. After monitoring/logging for almost a week daily, I did have some success. Recognizing that this is a new trs I hope the Radio Techs optimize and balance the system's user's audio levels. Some talkgroups were all over the place. Some were ok; a few bordered on distortion; a few had lower audio levels and when adjusted for that talkgroup, a few others much louder blasted in.
3. The absolute worst TG was 1033, the county SIRS link. I monitored only one clear acceptable comm all week. All the other comms had terrible overwhelming background noise similar to listening to someone trying to talk inside a waterfall. At one point it reminded me of a band opening on CB ch. 19 with attendant heterodyning.
4. I also concluded that this trs is a multi-data stream packet system where the data packets, i.e., system control, user data and voice packets all were multiplexed on the system. Guess what other trs is the same type? That's right. It is STARS! In the early days of STARS installations there were issues of missed comms, partial comms heard, motorboating, etc. It may have been sourced to DTA conversion issues. Digital scanners had problems dealing with this new type of trs and the result was a tradeoff in scanner reception. I also heard some motorboating earlier in the week, so I'm guessing that also may be impacting the audio in this trs. It's not a criticism, maybe it's just the way it is. Maybe the radio techs can do some system optimizing or maybe not.
5. This is a P2 TDMA type system being used which is the same type that cellphones use because more digital data can be used in the same amount of frequency spectrum as is limited in P1 systems. Another way to look at it is this basically is a 100% data/system control trs with occasional interruptions for audio comms.
6. As I previously posted I do not have any other P2 trs within my monitoring range with which to compare. I noticed that the 536 displays "PT0" for P2 audio and the "DAT" display for active data transmissions never stops. It only is interrupted temporarily for talk group audio comms.
7. I noticed the county VFD/EMS also is being simulcasted on vhf 154.2425 mhz. and the P25 P2 system.TG 1003,
8. Talkgroups monitored (Encrypted talkgroups were annoying and locked out)
TG 1001 COUNTY UNK. USER
TG 1003 COUNTY VFD/EMS
TG 1013 COUNTY UNK. USER
TG 1015 COUNTY RADIO TECHS
TG 1023 COUNTY UNK. (ENC.)
TG 1027 COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
TG 1031 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG T032 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG 1033 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG 1035 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG 1045 COUNTY RADIO TECHS
TG 1047 COUNTY JAIL
TG 1056 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1080 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1081 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1090 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1091 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1092 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1093 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1094 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1833 DOC UNK. USER
9. If anyone has any confirmed talkgroup ids or new talkgroups, please post them to this thread. Tnx.
John
W4UVV
1. Some of my past week's monitoring findings, comments, and observations:
2. After monitoring/logging for almost a week daily, I did have some success. Recognizing that this is a new trs I hope the Radio Techs optimize and balance the system's user's audio levels. Some talkgroups were all over the place. Some were ok; a few bordered on distortion; a few had lower audio levels and when adjusted for that talkgroup, a few others much louder blasted in.
3. The absolute worst TG was 1033, the county SIRS link. I monitored only one clear acceptable comm all week. All the other comms had terrible overwhelming background noise similar to listening to someone trying to talk inside a waterfall. At one point it reminded me of a band opening on CB ch. 19 with attendant heterodyning.
4. I also concluded that this trs is a multi-data stream packet system where the data packets, i.e., system control, user data and voice packets all were multiplexed on the system. Guess what other trs is the same type? That's right. It is STARS! In the early days of STARS installations there were issues of missed comms, partial comms heard, motorboating, etc. It may have been sourced to DTA conversion issues. Digital scanners had problems dealing with this new type of trs and the result was a tradeoff in scanner reception. I also heard some motorboating earlier in the week, so I'm guessing that also may be impacting the audio in this trs. It's not a criticism, maybe it's just the way it is. Maybe the radio techs can do some system optimizing or maybe not.
5. This is a P2 TDMA type system being used which is the same type that cellphones use because more digital data can be used in the same amount of frequency spectrum as is limited in P1 systems. Another way to look at it is this basically is a 100% data/system control trs with occasional interruptions for audio comms.
6. As I previously posted I do not have any other P2 trs within my monitoring range with which to compare. I noticed that the 536 displays "PT0" for P2 audio and the "DAT" display for active data transmissions never stops. It only is interrupted temporarily for talk group audio comms.
7. I noticed the county VFD/EMS also is being simulcasted on vhf 154.2425 mhz. and the P25 P2 system.TG 1003,
8. Talkgroups monitored (Encrypted talkgroups were annoying and locked out)
TG 1001 COUNTY UNK. USER
TG 1003 COUNTY VFD/EMS
TG 1013 COUNTY UNK. USER
TG 1015 COUNTY RADIO TECHS
TG 1023 COUNTY UNK. (ENC.)
TG 1027 COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
TG 1031 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG T032 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG 1033 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG 1035 COUNTY UNK. USER (ENC.)
TG 1045 COUNTY RADIO TECHS
TG 1047 COUNTY JAIL
TG 1056 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1080 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1081 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1090 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1091 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1092 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1093 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1094 DOC UNK. USER
TG 1833 DOC UNK. USER
9. If anyone has any confirmed talkgroup ids or new talkgroups, please post them to this thread. Tnx.
John
W4UVV
Talkgroups
1001 Shows as Animal Control
1023 Waverly PD
1031 Sheriff
Just reread your post, wonder if item 4 is causing me problems.
My BCD996P2 started having trouble receiving voice traffic yesterday afternoon. I can still see the control channel, but most voice traffic is not being received. I started using Freescan yesterday to log traffic. I can't imagine that it caused a problem. I may end up having to delete the system and build it again.
1001 Shows as Animal Control
1023 Waverly PD
1031 Sheriff
Just reread your post, wonder if item 4 is causing me problems.
My BCD996P2 started having trouble receiving voice traffic yesterday afternoon. I can still see the control channel, but most voice traffic is not being received. I started using Freescan yesterday to log traffic. I can't imagine that it caused a problem. I may end up having to delete the system and build it again.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
