Unication pager stun

[nhfdcadet]

Has anyone ever heard of a unication pager being stunned/killed by a trunking system? It was mentioned to me, but I had never heard of them even having this capability. I would assume that if the pager was programmed with no id by default, there would be no way to stun it.

 

[RaleighGuy]

There is a thread here on that. I'll try to find it. It is in Unication thread.

 

[GTR8000]

Yes, we experienced this firsthand a few months ago. We inhibited ID 1 on an ASTRO 25 system, and a bunch of G5 pagers responded to the command and were stunned. Would never expect a receive-only device to behave like that, but they did.

 

[RaleighGuy]

Has anyone ever heard of a unication pager being stunned/killed by a trunking system? It was mentioned to me, but I had never heard of them even having this capability. I would assume that if the pager was programmed with no id by default, there would be no way to stun it.

Talked about here in this thread

Registration; RID=1 REFUSED

I've been seeing several "Registration; RID=1 REFUSED" entries when monitoring our state's (TACN) system. I've been looking for it to try to affiliate, but so far, I haven't seen any attempts. Is that normal? I figured it's a failed attempt to NAS, so I'm wondering why no affiliation...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[nhfdcadet]

Talked about here in this thread

Registration; RID=1 REFUSED

I've been seeing several "Registration; RID=1 REFUSED" entries when monitoring our state's (TACN) system. I've been looking for it to try to affiliate, but so far, I haven't seen any attempts. Is that normal? I figured it's a failed attempt to NAS, so I'm wondering why no affiliation...

forums.radioreference.com

thanks! Here I was looking under the unication section, should have checked the Motorola section! lol

 

[KevinC]

thanks! Here I was looking under the unication section, should have checked the Motorola section! lol

Didn't you know? Everything is Motorola's fault.

 

[nhfdcadet]

so I asked this on that other thread as well, but if you leave the unit ID on the trunked system as NO SETTING, would I be correct to assume that the pager would not receive the inhibit command?

 

[GTR8000]

Presumably, as there would be no ID to match up with the inhibit command.

 

[nhfdcadet]

Presumably, as there would be no ID to match up with the inhibit command.

That's the way I was interpreting it, it makes sense to me.

 

[FishScan]

Why would anyone assign an ID to their pagers unless they want them to be addressed or stunned individually?

 

[rr60]

By default 1 is assigned and enabled, at least on my Uni’s. I am using the latest
PPS. Not only that, on each and every system. I too have heard of stuns in our area.

On my UT logs I see little history of UID 1 on many systems but there are a few.

 

[FishScan]

By default 1 is assigned and enabled, at least on my Uni’s. I am using the latest
PPS. Not only that, on each and every system. I too have heard of stuns in our area.

On my UT logs I see little history of UID 1 on many systems but there are a few.

Not true. Default is no ID.

 

[K9KLC]

Not true. Default is no ID.

I concur, în the SUID column I have "no setting". on them. IF, I click on that and hit "OK" however. it does save it as #1, and it appears "enable" is checked when you open it by double clicking but if you hit "cancel" then it saves the no setting, setting. If it already says no setting there is no reason to check would be my guess. It says to the right in the instructions, the default is "no setting".

 

[K9KLC]

so I asked this on that other thread as well, but if you leave the unit ID on the trunked system as NO SETTING, would I be correct to assume that the pager would not receive the inhibit command?
View attachment 176296

This would be my guess also. if you read on the right it's to target specific pagers. That's the only reason I can think of for it to be on there.

 

[2wayfreq]

I couldn't imagine Unication buiding in an inhibit pager disabling function in the first place. Did they?

 

[Enjoi19]

I couldn't imagine Unication buiding in an inhibit pager disabling function in the first place. Did they?

It exists. User posted it on one of the Unication facebook groups with the screen displaying "Device is Disabled"

 

[KevinC]

I couldn't imagine Unication buiding in an inhibit pager disabling function in the first place. Did they?

Makes perfect sense to me, especially since they have encryption capabilities. Unication with proper keys gets lost? No problem, just inhibit it. Only drawback is the system can't tell if it's been inhibited since they are RX only.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

The pagers were designed and marketed as system devices for agencies. The scanner community using them as receivers is no different that using a Motorola or Harris radio for NAS. As such, I agree with Kevin. If my fire agency lost one, I would want the ability to shut it off especially if its keyloaded.

For those asking, the devices can respond to not only QC2 paging, but call alert as well which requires a unique ID.

Treat these devices as you would any other professional system radio. I know the ranges of IDs in use on my local system and try not to pick an ID that is commonly used to illegally access a system (ID 1 for example) or put it in the range(s) that my local systems use. Any ID can be hit of course, but with 16.7 million to choose from, you can surely pick one that is lower risk that others.

 

[GTR8000]

I couldn't imagine Unication buiding in an inhibit pager disabling function in the first place. Did they?

No need to imagine anything, several of us have already confirmed the feature existing and having inhibited them.

 

[KevinC]

Any ID can be hit of course, but with 16.7 million to choose from, you can surely pick one that is lower risk that others.

I agree. I like B00B or BADDAD or something like that.