TOPAZ useless information

[etihparg]

Dale Shaw forwarded me your request regarding TOPAZ Regional Wireless Cooperative. The information you are seeking about the TRWC is available on the Radio Reference website: https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=2082. The information regarding the physical radio channels licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is available on the Radio Reference website or the FCC website (fcc.gov). The physical radio channels for the TRWC are licensed to the City of Mesa, who is the Administrative Manager for the TRWC in accordance with the TRWC Governance document.

As I’m sure you know, talkgroups in a trunked radio system such as the TRWC are logical channels. Talkgroups (logical channels) are not licensed by the FCC. Decisions about talkgroup use and encryption are made by the individual members, such as the Town of Gilbert. You will find information about talkgroups used by the TRWC members on the Radio Reference website.

Randy Thompson
Deputy Chief Information Officer
City of Mesa, Arizona

 

[Foresigt]

What were you trying to find out?

 

[etihparg]

Gilbert, AZ PD and all TOPAZ talkgroups, some probably encrypted now. At least I got a response.

 

[KR7CQ]

That's not information that most involved with overseeing a radio system feel much need to hand out to the general public. I believe most talk group information on RR is gathered by members searching and finding, as well as a small number of people with inside information who share that. Some have mentioned that they know for a fact that some people managing systems in their area actually share with RR database admins misleading information regarding talk groups, intentionally, and that wouldn't really surprise me. Many running these systems would just as soon encrypt everything, with zero regard to the general public, never mind scanner hobbyists.

 

[KB7MIB]

My guess is that the techs at the very least have to sign non-disclosure agreements in regards to what TG's are used for what purpose. It's very unlikely that emails to anyone will get us the information that we would like to have, even in regards to unencrypted TG's.

I actually contacted the Flood Control District of Maricopa County looking for information on their TG's, (which was channel 1 in their radios and what was it's official designation, which was channel 2 in their radios and what was it's official designation, etc.), and the person I contacted copied me in the response from their radio tech, who said they could not give that information out.

I don't agree with the policy. An encrypted TG is an encrypted TG, and it's unlikely that anyone would ever be able to break that encryption, even a sophisticated criminal syndicate, so what would the harm be in releasing the master list of TG's, or at least the unencrypted TG's, with all of their designations/uses?

But the powers that be don't see it that way. So we are left to try to figure it out by listening, and using the analysis/discovery tools that our scanners and various monitoring software provide us. And we just have to hope that the main dispatch TG's remain in the clear, but as Buckeye PD, Goodyear PD, Ft. McDowell PD, Salt River PD, Gila River PD, and the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, as well as Luke AFB's security forces and many of Yuma County's and La Paz County's first responder agencies, (even fire and EMS), that are on the AZWIN system, that doesn't always happen.

John
Peoria

 

[cfsimmont]

Also many of the people involved in the various agencies don't know anymore than we do. A good majority of them know Ch1 is Dispatch and so on as that is what is programmed into their radios. The different police departments thought for a long time that they werent able to be monitored by scanners being on a trunked or digital system, not knowing that in fact they were being monitored with scanners. As John mentioned the only ones that really know the layout of the talkgroups are the techs that set them up, everyone else pretty much just talks on the radio on the channels they are told to.

 

[TampaTyron]

Also, if you are willing to tell me about your ch 1 being dispatch and ch 3 being tactical, but you refuse to share anything about ch 2..... then I know to be interested in ch 2. Furthermore, there have never been more tools or resources available to a hobbyist. I would be happy with what is available and work at creating and sharing lists with others locally (part of my job is to train new radio system admins and I advise them to be aware of this site and the possible consequences of allowing unencrypted audio out of their control). TT

 

[Foresigt]

There are so many things that have created the need to go to P25 and then the need to encrypt. Even though we seek the information to listen to the action and use it for entertainment with no criminal intent, there are not so friendly people that use it to their advantage. Even demonstrators use scanners to know where they need to be to have a front line position or try to outmaneuver the police sometimes.

It's a vicious circle. As we make radio traffic more public, we also make public safety organizations more aware that they need to keep some if not all of their traffic encrypted, many times for officer safety. I'm sure we all remember when the press showed up at a shooting suspect's house and banged on the door before the PD got there because they heard the shooters info over the air.

As for calling agencies and asking questions, most people who have radios are users and know little except the certain channels are used for certain things. I'm sure almost everyone on there knows much more about the systems that are being used than the guys that actually talk on them. However, if you ask too many questions your innocent questions could raise some eyebrows though you have no ill intentions.

 

[n0doz]

OP, don't take this the wrong way. I spent many years in a police agency and part of that time had a hand in working on radio issues for my bureau. I can tell you from my interaction with folks at all levels of system management that they are automatically suspicious of anyone from "outside" that has more knowledge of the system than they think outsiders ought to have. While you and I believe these are the "public airwaves" there are some that definitely do NOT agree. Trying to reason with them (I have) is like talking to a wall, and our trying to "educate" them on the public's right to listen is not going to matter to them in the least. I'm not saying we're going to "make" them encrypt more just because you or I try to ask a question, just don't expect a lot of information from those with an "attitude" about us. Don't let it bother you.