The official "I want LSM to work properly in my scanner" thread

[troymail]

I think this sums up the prevailing attitude regarding being able to make a 25 - 1300 MHz scanner that works well on all bands and that uses the kind of receiver circuit y'all are talking about and can be afforded by enough people to make it worthwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sor0LXiSZg&feature=youtu.be&t=12

May sound crazy but what about the model Unication seems to be following -- for instance - a 700/800 scanner that works correctly on simulcast.

Sure, that won't make folks needing 150 or 450 Mhz happy but I bet there is a huge market for just an 7/800 unit....

Even if it did 7/800 as well as Unication and potentially offered the other bands with no such guarantees would be probably have a huge audience.

 

[KR7CQ]

May sound crazy but what about the model Unication seems to be following -- for instance - a 700/800 scanner that works correctly on simulcast.

Sure, that won't make folks needing 150 or 450 Mhz happy but I bet there is a huge market for just an 7/800 unit....

Even if it did 7/800 as well as Unication and potentially offered the other bands with no such guarantees would be probably have a huge audience.

Same thing I'm wondering. A true scanner for 700/800 LSM. Lockout, hold, multi-system scan. Most big agencies would be covered within the next few years, by such a device. Why not?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[captainmax1]

I like this idea also. I have to use at least two devices to cover all Ham frequencies so why not?

 

[radio3353]

I and many others listen to P25 Phase II with Uniden (and Whistler) scanners all day long. How could I not advertise APCO P25 Phase II, especially when my competition advertises the same (and performs comparably, although in some environments ours are better, some theirs are better)?

[Bold emphasis mine]
Well, maybe you could put in a disclaimer about simulcast systems since your radios perform badly with them for 99% of your customers. Be honest about the performance and cut the marketing crap.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Same thing I'm wondering. A true scanner for 700/800 LSM. Lockout, hold, multi-system scan. Most big agencies would be covered within the next few years, by such a device. Why not?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

With respect to multi-system scan, my guess is that majority of ‘professional’ users would not need this option. They only need to listen to one site, on one system.

The biggest issue with having a passive device to alert on a multi site system is that usually you have to have an affiliated radio, on the talk-group you want to be alerted on for the Unication to actually pick up the pages.

I’m sure that a system could be configured to force a page out to sites on a specific talk-group even if a radio is not affiliated on the talk-group in question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iMONITOR]

May sound crazy but what about the model Unication seems to be following -- for instance - a 700/800 scanner that works correctly on simulcast.

Except the Unication is not quite a 'scanner'. So there's trade offs there as well.

 

[fredva]

We're talking about a new scanner now, whose similarity to Unication receivers would be limited band coverage to control costs. Not pagers - a pager that handles simulcast is already available.

I think a band-specific scanner is something worth exploring, if a simulcast-capable scanner couldn't be available any other way. I would also cut out the bells and whistles to save costs. The most important feature of a scanner is being able to listen. But although band-specific might be acceptable, the ability to monitor more than one system on that band should be a requirement, in my view.

 

[UPMan]

With respect to multi-system scan, my guess is that majority of ‘professional’ users would not need this option. They only need to listen to one site, on one system.

I have never met with or spoken to a professional user who would be happy with that. All the ones I have worked with either use a scanner with their entire system (all sites) or are more often using the scanner to monitor multiple outside agencies on other systems (or on their own system, but on channels not provisioned to their transceivers). I'd never build such a limitation into a scanner.

 

[KR7CQ]

We're talking about a new scanner now, whose similarity to Unication receivers would be limited band coverage to control costs. Not pagers - a pager that handles simulcast is already available.

I think a band-specific scanner is something worth exploring, if a simulcast-capable scanner couldn't be available any other way. I would also cut out the bells and whistles to save costs. The most important feature of a scanner is being able to listen. But although band-specific might be acceptable, the ability to monitor more than one system on that band should be a requirement, in my view.

We are on the same page. I'm not talking about a Unication pager with scan, as they have said they have zero interest in making a scanner. I'm talking about a scanner manufacturer making a scanner here, one focused on 700/800 LSM, period. In most big cities, and in many other places, 700/800 LSM is either in place, or soon to be in place. It will be the dominant format for the foreseeable future. So why not a scanner for this dominant format? Yes that would mean carrying two devices if you also want to monitor VHF, UHF, airband, rail, etc. It's pretty apparent that a "one size fits all" scanner is not coming any time soon, so why not this compromise? Many already carry two devices much of the time (G4/5 and a scanner for example). But a scanner like the one I'm talking about would be far, far better than a Unication for scanner people. The big question is, would there be an adequate customer base to justify the R&D investment? I don't know, UPman probably has a better idea on that one...but that's the real question.

 

[kayn1n32008]

The official "I want LSM to work properly in my scanner" thread

I have never met with or spoken to a professional user who would be happy with that. All the ones I have worked with either use a scanner with their entire system (all sites) or are more often using the scanner to monitor multiple outside agencies on other systems (or on their own system, but on channels not provisioned to their transceivers). I'd never build such a limitation into a scanner.

I think you mid-understand what I meant, and I should have worded it better. A professional user may need to listen to multiple sites, but with in the same system, but majority won’t need to be alerted on other systems. Most users are using it as a tool, and are not scanner heads, but have it to be alerted to calls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

You can have Phase 2 without simulcast... so saying a scanner does Phase 2 is not technical incorrect or untrue ... however, one might say it is misleading and/or not being fully transparent ...

I think you are going to be hard pressed to find many significant PUBLIC SAFETY P25 system in 800/700 MHz that are not simulcast and fewer phase 2 that are not simulcast. These systems are designed around portable radios, and where you have portables in 800/700 MHz, you require remote receivers, and as a result, you have simulcast almost by default from Motorola and now Harris. It has been a trend since the mid 80's and with P25 it has become universal. Bear in mind, these are metro areas, I am sure there are some systems for highway patrol in Iowa or Wisconsin (VHF anyways) or over in podunk that are multisite, not simulcast.

 

[KR7CQ]

I think you are going to be hard pressed to find many significant PUBLIC SAFETY P25 system in 800/700 MHz that are not simulcast and fewer phase 2 that are not simulcast. These systems are designed around portable radios, and where you have portables in 800/700 MHz, you require remote receivers, and as a result, you have simulcast almost by default from Motorola and now Harris. It has been a trend since the mid 80's and with P25 it has become universal. Bear in mind, these are metro areas, I am sure there are some systems for highway patrol in Iowa or Wisconsin (VHF anyways) or over in podunk that are multisite, not simulcast.

I would say that seems to be by far the case. However, one of the largest (geographically) P25 systems in the country, our own AZ WINS system which is a statewide system in Arizona (Highway Patrol and others use it), is multi-site, not simulcast. I would imagine the examples are few and far between though, and it looks like P2 will favor simulcast even more as those systems are rolled out.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I would say that seems to be by far the case. However, one of the largest (geographically) P25 systems in the country, our own AZ WINS system which is a statewide system in Arizona (Highway Patrol and others use it), is multi-site, not simulcast. I would imagine the examples are few and far between though, and it looks like P2 will favor simulcast even more as those systems are rolled out.

Statewide systems will be multisite unless it is a tiny state. Large site separation distance limits the utility of simulcast. What you usually have are ribbon multisite systems along major arteries and smaller simulcast "cells" in metro areas. Coincidentally, the greater population, and arguably scanner purchasers usually are living in the populous metro areas.

 

[APX8000]

New Jersey (NJICS) has numerous “sites” which are actually a simulcast of several sites (all using the same RFSS and Site ID) using TDMA...and it also has individual sites (their own RFSS and Site ID) also running TDMA. It’s done where some areas require Countywide coverage (as everyone shares the system core), others are more affiliation only to carry a Statewide talkgroup, etc. Why waste channel resources if not needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[phask]

I think you are going to be hard pressed to find many significant PUBLIC SAFETY P25 system in 800/700 MHz that are not simulcast and fewer phase 2 that are not simulcast. These systems are designed around portable radios, and where you have portables in 800/700 MHz, you require remote receivers, and as a result, you have simulcast almost by default from Motorola and now Harris. It has been a trend since the mid 80's and with P25 it has become universal. Bear in mind, these are metro areas, I am sure there are some systems for highway patrol in Iowa or Wisconsin (VHF anyways) or over in podunk that are multisite, not simulcast.

In Ohio there are just a few, mainly the large metro areas and 1 rural county. There are 88 counties, somewhere upwards of 130 sites and less than 10 simulcast. (without taking the time to count).

 

[radio3353]

I think you are going to be hard pressed to find many significant PUBLIC SAFETY P25 system in 800/700 MHz that are not simulcast and fewer phase 2 that are not simulcast. These systems are designed around portable radios, and where you have portables in 800/700 MHz, you require remote receivers, and as a result, you have simulcast almost by default from Motorola and now Harris. It has been a trend since the mid 80's and with P25 it has become universal. Bear in mind, these are metro areas, I am sure there are some systems for highway patrol in Iowa or Wisconsin (VHF anyways) or over in podunk that are multisite, not simulcast.

It is already here in SE Pennsylvania. Bucks County is Ph. 2 simulcast, Montgomery County is working to have their Ph. 2 simulcast system up by fall, Philly is Ph. 1 simulcast with Ph. 2 capability as soon as they build it out.Not sure about Chester and Delaware counties.

 

[lu81fitter]

I live in Central Illinois. I monitor many digital AND analog systems. I have a BCT 15X in my car as well a 996P2. I will miss many transmissions without having both. Having 2 radios is just a given for me. I will probably not ever go back to only one.
I also travel to the Peoria and Joliet areas. As expected, the simulcast reception is less than desirable, but I can still listen to quite a bit. I have noticed that I do pick up the State Motorola simulcast system in Peoria WAY better than Peoria County's Harris system. I'm pretty sure that they are using the same towers as well.
At any rate, there are still a lot of analog systems in my area. I'm holding out on another radio until things change in my neck of the woods. My 996P2 and 15X work fine for what I monitor. I'm sure its different in large metropolitan areas.

 

[jasonhouk]

Here's a short video of my dilemma when scanning COIRS in Delaware, Ohio!

https://youtu.be/9wrgk1FZOvI

I just wish someone would manufacture a scanner that could properly decode LSM as I scan all bands and carrying multiple radios is not an option for me.

 

[Nasby]

Here's a short video of my dilemma when scanning COIRS in Delaware, Ohio!

https://youtu.be/9wrgk1FZOvI

I just wish someone would manufacture a scanner that could properly decode LSM as I scan all bands and carrying multiple radios is not an option for me.

You're pretty much doomed when trying to scan those Columbus area simulcast sites with a scanner.

 

[KE4ZNR]

Here's a short video of my dilemma when scanning COIRS in Delaware, Ohio!

https://youtu.be/9wrgk1FZOvI

I just wish someone would manufacture a scanner that could properly decode LSM as I scan all bands and carrying multiple radios is not an option for me.

Geez....that sounds rough. Has anyone tried using a Unication pager there?

Do any scanners work on that system?

Marshall KE4ZNR