The North Fulton County's new system

[N8IAA]

The HomePatrol-1 will not monitor that system so it will not show up in your database. It's a Phase 2 system. None of the talk groups are encrypted on NFRRSA as of yet.

Sorry, Dan. It uploaded into my HP1 with no problem. It is running Phase I TGID's. NFRRSA even has its own FavList.
Larry

 

[N8IAA]

I'm using a Home Patrol-1. It looks like the new NFRRSA P-25 isn't in the database yet (as of today 5/8). If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know where to look.

Also, does anyone know if the Sandy Springs talkgroups will move to Phase 2? What about encryption? I would consider buying a Phase 2 scanner if needed, but don't want to do so and then find the channels encrypted.

Updated the database two, three days ago via Sentinel. No problem making a Favorite List for it on my HP1. Works on my Pro-106, PSR-800 (in DG mode, not DG2), 396XT. So it should work on your HP1.
Larry

 

[gtscee]

I was able to find the NFRRSA Sandy Springs channels. Was looking under Fulton County at the top level and didn't realize that it is broken out into it's own top level group.

I hear some activity on the police dispatch channel, but the traffic seems very light for a Friday night.

Hope they stay with a phase 1 setup and don't encrypt.

 

[wise871]

Sorry, Dan. It uploaded into my HP1 with no problem. It is running Phase I TGID's. NFRRSA even has its own FavList.
Larry

Thats good to know. I forgot about that, brain freeze when I replied.
Thanks

 

[DanRollman]

I was able to find the NFRRSA Sandy Springs channels. Hope they stay with a phase 1 setup and don't encrypt.

Very doubtful they stay on Phase 1 talkgroups long term, but whether they encrypt when they ultimately switch to Phase 2 is anyone's guess.

Fortunately, Sandy Springs doesn't seem to have the same anti-citizen, "us vs. them" mentality that Gwinnett County and Clayton County seem to have in so much of what they do, which of course shows through in Gwinnett's and Clayton's decisions to prohibit local taxpayers from monitoring the activities those taxpayers fund.

Incidentally, there is so much delicious irony in Gwinnett County electing to lump itself in with Clayton County as the only other major county in the metro to freeze out its taxpayers. Anyone who understands local race-and-corruption politics should ponder that one for a while...

Given their (relatively) pro-community, customer service oriented local government, there is at least a chance the North Fulton cities won't encrypt their day-to-day field communications in the future. For now at least, most of the bureaucrats in the North Fulton cities still seem to see their role as serving the citizen-taxpayers. Amazing! Like a throwback to a prior generation. But those cities are still relatively young, and there is plenty of time for those bureaucrats (and their successors) to realize the opportunity to create a fiefdom and fleece the citizens for their own private purposes.

Dan

 

[MTS2000des]

Given their (relatively) pro-community, customer service oriented local government, there is at least a chance the North Fulton cities won't encrypt their day-to-day field communications in the future. For now at least, most of the bureaucrats in the North Fulton cities still seem to see their role as serving the citizen-taxpayers. Amazing! Like a throwback to a prior generation. But those cities are still relatively young, and there is plenty of time for those bureaucrats (and their successors) to realize the opportunity to create a fiefdom and fleece the citizens for their own private purposes.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the only reason they aren't encrypting on this system is there is too much legacy equipment which does not have the encryption capability on the network.

Once those old XTS/XTL radios are replaced over the next year and a half with phase 2 (APX) subscriber hardware, phase 2 and encryption are inevitable. I cannot publicly quote my source, but it comes from someone within radio management.

Maybe they will change their mind, maybe if we the radio community don't blabber the business they will reconsider. But in the end, it is what it is. Enjoy being able to monitor what we can today, there are NO GUARANTEES it will be available tomorrow.

That is just the cold hard reality, not just in North Fulton, but everywhere.

 

[DanRollman]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the only reason they aren't encrypting on this system is there is too much legacy equipment which does not have the encryption capability on the network. Once those old XTS/XTL radios are replaced over the next year and a half with phase 2 (APX) subscriber hardware, phase 2 and encryption are inevitable.

"I hate to be the one to break it to you" [thanks, MTS2000des, for the next chapter of your how-to guide on needlessly-condescending language - this is becoming quite a thick book!], but I have heard from two inside sources I consider to be very reliable, that widespread encryption is not currently planned for precisely the reasons I identified in my earlier message. We shall see.

I cannot publicly quote my source.

Gotcha. So we're even on that score.

Maybe if we the radio community don't blabber the business they will reconsider.

I do not and will not concede that where and how taxpayer-funded public servants operate is proprietary information, and that it is a mere privilege that some of our overloads sometimes allow "us civilians" to know a little something about "the business" we finance. That attitude seems certain to lead to encryption.

Enjoy being able to monitor what we can today, there are NO GUARANTEES it will be available tomorrow.

I agree completely with that.

 

[MTS2000des]

"I hate to be the one to break it to you" [thanks, MTS2000des, for the next chapter of your how-to guide on needlessly-condescending language - this is becoming quite a thick book!], but I have heard from two inside sources I consider to be very reliable, that widespread encryption is not currently planned for precisely the reasons I identified in my earlier message. We shall see.

Well...since you want to turn this into an argument, do either of your "sources" happen to have an email address ending in NFRRSA.org?

There was no condescending language intended. If you're "sources" are so adamant that the reasons they won't be enabling the AES-256 and ADP encryption they've ordered on those new APX subscriber radios planned to roll out within the next year and a half, that's great news. But as I'm sure you'd concur, nothing is set in stone. We don't have a "right" to monitor anything. The fact that we can right now is awesome, and I'm enjoying it responsibly.

Meanwhile, the RFP and purchase orders called for encryption on all subscriber hardware. This is a fact. Feel free to ask the POC at the NFRRSA yourself. That's all public record. Don't see anything about a change order being discussed on their last meeting agenda, nor did I see any "citizen input" about it on the tab item with that label:

http://roswellgov-videos.com/MeetingDocuments/2015.04.22-NFRRSA-Agenda.pdf

If a change order was made within the last week or so, news to me.

I do not and will not concede that where and how taxpayer-funded public servants operate is proprietary information, and that it is a mere privilege that some of our overloads sometimes allow "us civilians" to know a little something about "the business" we finance. That attitude seems certain to lead to encryption.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you. I merely stating what I hear everytime I sit at the table with many of my contacts, and the results of recent public records requests filed by others on recently encrypted systems in a neighboring county. It isn't my opinion or yours that matters, it's those who hold the cards, and the fact is, they have cited these very websites and online streaming as factors in their decision to encrypt all radio traffic on their respective systems.

What would be nice to see is if some educated, formative and concise comments coming from the radio enthusiast community were appropriately directed to these officials in a professional and correct manner citing facts and not fiction.

Reality is (at least from the most recent changes in Gwinnett) this didn't happen except the one I filed and the one another anonymous person did. That's telling.

Lots of people complain, point fingers and say "yep that's the way it is" but when the rubber meets the road, very few if any actually put forth a modicum of effort to counter the reasons cited why these officials make the decisions they do.

In New Orleans, LA, and Spokane County, WA citizens, media and fellow safety spoke up with reasonable arguments which causes officials to change their minds about encryption, at least for now.

If we had the same type of response here, we might see the same or similar results.

 

[DanRollman]

Well...since you want to turn this into an argument, do either of your "sources" happen to have an email address ending in NFRRSA.org?

I have no desire at all to turn this in to an argument. Just wish the local scanner enthusiasts could be more collaborative and cooperative, rather than condescending and authoritative. Anyway, my two sources do NOT have NFRSSA.org email addresses. Rather, they would be two people who would tell people with NFRSSA.org email addresses what they want them to do for them. I'm sure you get the idea, given how NFRSSA is set up.

If you're "sources" are so adamant that the reasons they won't be enabling the AES-256 and ADP encryption they've ordered on those new APX subscriber radios planned to roll out within the next year and a half, that's great news. But as I'm sure you'd concur, nothing is set in stone.

I totally concur. And I'd be shocked if any new system, and any new system RFP, didn't include encryption capabilities. But that's far different than flipping the switch to encrypt everything. My original home town, Pima County, AZ, went Phase II last year. They ordered every radio to have encryption capabilities. And yet only a handful of SWAT, narcotics and similar talkgroups are actually encrypted to this date. But as you say, anything can happen in the future.

Meanwhile, the RFP and purchase orders called for encryption on all subscriber hardware. This is a fact. Feel free to ask the POC at the NFRRSA yourself. That's all public record. Don't see anything about a change order being discussed on their last meeting agenda, nor did I see any "citizen input" about it on the tab item with that label:

Again, I'd be shocked if an RFP for new subscriber equipment did NOT include encryption on all subscribed hardware. Given what they spend on all this crap, why wouldn't they add encryption to everything? Pima County, AZ sure did. But that made no difference as to what talkgroups they actually chose to encrypt. That defines only which subscribers are "capable" of operating on an encrypted talkgroup in the future.

I guess I just don't think an RFP for the type of equipment ordered is the key to the extent to which encryption will actually be used. There are far too many agencies with encryption-capable subscriber units across the country that are not actively encrypting their routine communications, for me to believe the RFP itself is the clear signal as to whether a particular agency plans to encrypt a particular talkgroup (namely, Dispatch and the like).

 

[MTS2000des]

I have no desire at all to turn this in to an argument. Just wish the local scanner enthusiasts could be more collaborative and cooperative, rather than condescending and authoritative.

I concur. But that is easier said and done. Speaking from the standpoint of someone who's been running a small non-profit, it's a challenge to get 10 people together for anything like a training class or event. We are own worst enemies.

Maybe when the next NFRRSA meeting is posted, anyone game for a group attendance and make our informed, educated comments known? I would be, but I am not going to do it alone.

 

[DanRollman]

Maybe when the next NFRRSA meeting is posted, anyone game for a group attendance and make our informed, educated comments known? I would be, but I am not going to do it alone.

I'm in...