HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: 800MHz Trunked Radio System Signals
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:17:52 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec31.102025.17093@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]: 
]: A couple of problems with this:
]:   (1) It seems like each trunking system uses different signalling technology.
]:       Thus any scanner would have to be able to handle a bunch of these,
]:       and would become obsolete quickly. 
]
]There are three, I believe, different systems used. Only two of them use
]control channels.

Good news. Now, do you or others in the commercial 2-way radio business
know how stable this is? Are Motorola and GE likely to stick to the same
system for many years, introducing new compatable radios, or are they
going change entire systems periodically? I really don't know.

Also, I understand that public safety and other land mobile services
are going to be required to go to high spectral efficiency radios
(such as TDM or spread spectrum or ACSSB). Is this true? If so, when?
Someone reading this net is bound to know.
]
]:   (2) It is illegal to receive digitally encrypted signals. I don't know
]:       if it is illegal to build decryptors, but if it isn't, it would be
]:       quickly.
]
]No, it is only illegal to decode encrypted signals. These are not encrypted,
]they are straightforward control signals. They are code - not encrypted
]signals.
My comment refers to DVP, not control signals.
]
]:   (3) The digital encryption schemes are quite strong. I doubt that you
]:       could afford a scanner that could decrypt them (without knowing the
]:       key beforehand). Such a scanner would probably cost at least
]:       $20,000,000 (in order to crack the DES code). Now, you are probably
]:       going to respond "yeah, but they cracked the Videocipher" to which
]:       I shall pre-emptively respond: "Yes, but that's different."
]
My comment refers to DVP, not control signals.

]See above. The control signals are not encrypted. That does not mean that
]they cannot be. Nor would it do much good to do so. Encryption only works
]when you do not have a bunch of repetitive signals. The same signals would
]occur, over and over again, with control signals. That would make it quite
]easy to break any encryption.

Actually, this is not true. A strong encryption would not be easy to
crack even if you sent the same signal through it over and over again.
Such a system is slightly less easy to crack than using a known plaintext
attack, and significantly harder than a chosen plaintext attack.

Tell you what, I'll encrypt the same control signal in DES 100 times,
and send you each one. Let me know when you crack it :-)

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Monitoring Times confusion
Keywords: Montitoring TImes
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:19:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.185719.7258@microsoft.com> stevenj@microsoft.com (Steven Johnson) writes:
>I just received my first issue of Monitoring Times, hoping it would
>answer some questions I had about monitoring radio frequencies.
>Instead, I am more confused.  In this newsgreoup, I hear things
>like " The Pro 43 is the best handheld so far..."  But in the 
>Monitoring Times, there are ads for things like the ICOM IC-R1,
>with continuous 100k-1300MHz coverage (does this mean cellular too?),
>the Interceptor (intercepts near-field transmissions, whatever they are),
>the ICOM IC-2SRA (two antennas!), Bearcat 8500XLT-D (500 channels!), the 
>AR-1000XLT, etc.

How much do you want to spend?   Do you want a handheld or a fixed location
scanner.  What do you want to hear?  100khz to 30 mhz is Shortwave.  30 mhz
up to 1000mhz and beyond is the typical scanner range.  

From the AES Winter 92/93 Catalog...

Icom R1   $449.95      100khz-1.3ghz Handheld receiver
Icom 2SRA $479.95      2meter Ham Transceiver witn 25-905 mhz receiver (HH)
BC 8500 XLT  Not Listed
AR-1000  Not Listed


Pro-43 (from GROVE catalog)  $299.00  20mhz-1000mhz (missing some chunks of
                                                     frequencies)


As far as the R1 goes, for optimum reception of shortwave, you really would
need a fixed antenna.  The signals below 30mhz just don't come in all that
well on a rubber duck antenna.

The IC2SRA requires that you have an Amateur radio license in order to
operate the transceiver.

BC8500 ???

AR-1000  I've heard that this is a good receiver (scanner) but it is also
         quite expensive.

Pro-43  Not really a bad scanner for the price, but it does have birdies
(self oscilations) in several areas.  



Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: another approach to f
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 07:50:49 GMT

dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
: 
: You appear to be questioning the legality of the police actions?  Aren't the
: 'offenders' actually aiding and abetting a lawbreaker (speeder?)  And would
: you like your family to be endangered by such reckless behavior?

The behavior may be reckless, in that it may get them a ticket. However, you
cannot say that the act is also "endangering" others. If they are weaving in
and out of traffic, tailgateing etc - then, I would agree that they were a
danger. And, they would not have to be speeding to do so.

: On the other side, there were some folks who felt that some cops didn't really
: object to the warnings to other drivers because that had the desired effect.
: Speeders slowed.  (unless their salaries were based on ticket quotas. then...)

That seems to be the case in Oregon. They often park by the side of the
freeway, without using their radar, just to get traffic slowed down.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: PRO-30 Info
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:47:53 GMT

riyadth@boi.hp.com (Riyadth Al-Kazily) writes:
: 
: This has been asked many, many times, about many, many scanners.  I
: would like to know, is it possible to modify ANY scanner that does not
: originally cover 800MHz frequencies so that it does cover them?  If so,
: can it work well (I would think that the analog circuitry would have to
: be tweaked (to say the least) to allow reception so far above the
: designed range of the receiver).

Certainly. For many of them, it is a matter of clipping or adding a
diode/resistor. Whether it can be done depends on the scanner. Many
of the older ones cannot be modified.

Remember that there are several things that must all work before the
new band will work. (Information courtesy of Bill  Cheek).

1) The CPU must be programmed for that band.
2) The preselector must be designed for that band.
3) The mixer must be designed for that band.
4) The VCO must be designed for that band.

If any of the above are true, it it would be extremely difficult to
modify the receiver.  You would want to use a down-converter instead.
I suggest anyone interested in modifying a scanner purchase the 
"Scanner Modification Handbook" by Bill Cheek. ISBN 0-939780-11-9
in paperback. You can buy it from CRB Research Books, Inc in Commack,
New York. They have an 800 number - call 800 information. They accept
major credit cards.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: wvogel@MtHolyoke.edu (keeper of the tone)
Subject: Re: Frequency list for St. Augustine, FL
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 04:43:58 GMT

have you checked with your local RADIO SHACK store ?
they sell a complete listing of all inuse radio frequencies in your area
they are listed by city and relisted by frequency
its only 9.95 +sale tax if any
wayne
From: PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Scanner sex?
Date: 1 Jan 1993 08:56:19 -0600
Organization: University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

      Does the "community standards" thing apply to newsgroups?  If so, does
this meet or exceed the standards?

Peter Laws              |"The '90s are gonna make the '60s|plaws@uafhp.uark.edu
n5uwy@ka5bml.ar.usa.noam| look like the '50s"--D. Hopper  |plaws@uafsysb.bitnet
From: bennett@erich.triumf.ca (P.Bennett)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Receiving Scrambled Transmissions
Date: 31 Dec 1992 16:51 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1hve80INNk4k@uwm.edu>, retzer@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes...
>I've been monitoring a local small town police dept. recently and came 
>across some interesting transmissions. While 95% of all transmissions
>are easily heard, every once in a while something unusual happens. 
>Specifically, I hear the squelch open for approximately 5 to 15 
>seconds but nothing, save for static is heard. After that the dispatcher
>comes back with an answer that is easily understood. I was wondering
>if some type of scrambling device is being used and if so, is there a
>way around it? Again, this is a rather small town so I'd be very 
>surprised if it was anything too sophisticated (ie. expensive).
> 

If the police dept. uses a repeater (quite likely), then it would be possible
for the cars to transmit a sub-audible tone, or similar code, that would
prevent the repeater from re-broadcasting their transmission while not
interfering with the dispatcher's reception. (The dispatcher would be using the
repeater receiver directly, rather than recieving the repeater output as you,
and the cars, do.)

If you have a spare scanner ;-) you might try to find the mobile transmit
frequency and see what happens there when the repeater output is muted.

Peter Bennett VE7CEI                | Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight
Internet: bennett@erich.triumf.ca   | of one another only when one can be
Bitnet:   bennett@triumfer          | observed visually from the other
TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., Canada     |                          ColRegs 3(k)

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: thierman@nordegg.ucs.ualberta.ca (Chris Thierman)
Subject: Mods for the Radio Shack Pro-2005 scanner for 800Mhz...
Reply-To: thierman@nordegg.ucs.ualberta.ca
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:01:50 GMT

In article <1hnudqINNjvn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  
(David Hoppe) writes:
> 
> 	Recently I put out a request for mods concering Radio Shack
> models pro-41 and pro-59. Does anyone know if these models can be
> modified to recieve 800Mhz? Also a friend of mind who has a pro-2024
> needs some mods for this.
I saw something posted for the radio Shack pro-2005 about a year ago but failed to save it... I need it now, and was wondering if someone could repost it, or mail it to me directly... I seem to recall there were others
for some of the units above as well...
Email: thierman@nordegg.ucs.ualberta.ca
cieve 800Mhz? Also a friend of mind who has a pro-2024
> needs some mods for this.
I saw something posted for the radio Shack pro-2005 about a year ago but failed to save it... I need it now, and was wondering
From: ci167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David Hoppe)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Yet another request..
Date: 27 Dec 1992 17:14:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


	Along with the PRO-41 Mods, I would also like to recieve
some Mods for the RS PRO-59? Thanks Again.
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: brett@surfpix.princeton.edu (Brett Borowski)
Subject: Old/New BC200xlt
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:00:06 GMT

I've got a question.  Does anybody know if there are any differences in
performance between the old and new BC200xlts?  (ie, the one with
resistors with stripes on them and the one with little black resistor
chips with numbers on them)

I ask because I had an old one which I sent to Racing Electronics for
service and received a new one in exchange rather than the repaired
original.  Was this a good deal, a bad deal, or no deal at all?

Thanks,
Brett


-- 
brett@surfpix.princeton.edu		(Finger for more info...)
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: 800MHz Trunked Radio System Signals
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:22:14 GMT
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

rdale@nyx.cs.du.edu (Robert P Dale) writes:

> In article <djc.2x61@terapin.com> djc@terapin.com (Don Coco) writes:
> >Well I am rather upset by our fire department going to this new system.  Whi
> >I realize that they need more channels I feel that I have the right to liste
> >to public services.  Apparently they feel differently.
> 
> That's an interesting viewpoint I've heard at several fire scenes since
> Toledo went up to 800...  I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, but
> I have talked to some who think that TFD just moved up to keep
> monitors off the air!  I've tried to explain the massive 
> benifits of a trunked, computerized system over the old VHF but
> that never works.

Unfortunately, there aren't any benefits. The trunked systems use 
repeaters meaning that ALL the portables must reach the base station 
sites and the computers must be working. If you find it better than 
your old VHF radios, you had a really screwed-up system. There are many 
horror stories already about these trunked systems and there will be 
more. Too bad the 'powers-that-be' are only interested in the LATEST 
technology, not the BEST technology for the job at hand.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn)
Subject: Re: 381.380MHz Monitoring
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:26:01 GMT

There is nothing wrong with either your frequency counter or your scanner.
The fact that you do not hear anything on your scanner should alert you to
the fact that your counter is getting an erroneous reading (non-flame).
You have to keep in mind that the counter has no frequency selectivity 
whatsoever and may be either locking on to a spurious signal of the actual
frequency in use. The spurious signal may actually be generated in the first
device in your counter due to signal overload. You may want to eyeball the
antennas on the walkie talkies and take a guess at the frequency range and 
then do a search with your scanner. Sometimes a little flattery will let you
actually handle the radios and then you could look on the case for any clues
as to frequency range. Good luck!
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: meyer@server.cs.jhu.edu (Me)
Subject: Icom modifications
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Distribution: alt.radio.scanner
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:32:59 GMT

	I have a ICOM R-1 scanner, and was wondering if there are 
any modifications available for it.  In particular to increase scan speed,
increase memory size, allow NTSC output (or wide frequency output).
From: djc@terapin.com (Don Coco)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Media Freq's: San Francisco Bay Area
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:13:57 PST
Organization: BBS

I have most of them in my head but you should show me your list and I will add
to it if I can.

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: fcc and cordless fon
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:56:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.190723.18012@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>Cordless phone monitoring is illegal in California (State Law), so why not
>in Kentucky?
>
>-grl.
>-----
>
Boy!  Let me try to understand you...  Are you saying that everything that is
illegal in California should necessarily be illegal in Kentucky, or Texas, or
wherever?  Was that your question?   Whoa.  Let us fervently hope not.

California goes its own way.  thank goodness.  there are a LOT of things which
are legal, or illegal out there that I'd prefer to avoid in my state...


--david

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: puma <puma@halcyon.com>
Subject: Re: 800MHz Trunked Radio System Signals
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Keywords: The Control channel
Organization: organized?? me??
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:11:00 GMT

lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy) writes:

> This is another typical mis-representation. Unless the transmitting 
> unit is full-duplex, it will continue transmitting, blocking that 
> channel. Even though the system might prevent the next transmission, 

If the remote unit that was using the repeater and the remote unit
requesting emergency access are on different incoming frequencies,
why CAN'T the system immediately turn over the repeater channel
to the emergency unit?  What difference would it make if the first
remote unit continued transmitting?
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: meyer@server.cs.jhu.edu (Me)
Subject: Re: Monitoring Times confusion
Keywords: Montitoring TImes
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:32:35 GMT

	The Icom R1 and the AOR 1000XLT are very similar.  The 1000 XLT has
more memory, but is considerably larger, and in my opinion of inferior
quality.  They both do exactly as advertised, 100KHz-1300MHz.  Yes, that 
includes police, fire, medics, commercial, security guards, cellular, cordles,
AM, FM, shortwave, TV audio, you name it does it.  I have a ICOM R1.  I find
it an excellent reciever, it can pick up any frequency and I love it.  It is
rather poor as a scanner, by that I mean it has more difficulty finding 
frequencies.  Note that I said more difficulty, not by any means impossible.
If you get a good frequency list its much better than your average scanner.
Incidentily, another advantage the Icom has over the AOR is that the 
interface, is *MUCH* better.

	The ICOM-2SRA is an excellent piece of equipment.  It is essentially
a 25-905MHz scanner combined with a 2 meter HAM transciever, I have read
reviews in QST which seem to love this scanner, except for some minor
problems which are found in all radio equipment.

	"Interceptors" I believe are designed to find the louded signal
around and lock on it.  This is kind of like a scanner.  For example, if you
were in a mall and wanted to listen to the security in the mall, you turn 
the device on and you would listen to the mall cops, BUT this is all you
would listen too.  When you moved closer to another transmitter it would
change to that one.

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: another approach to f
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:10:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.181617.697@uoft02.utoledo.edu> cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>Are you saying the PD actually monitored Ch 19 while a speed trap was in
>effect?  Did they actually have people monitoring the CB with directional
>antennae so they could pick up these 'CB speed bandits'?  Were the 'offenders'
>prosecuted under Federal, State or local laws?

Brad, all this was several years ago, so I can give no specifics, but, to reply
to some of your questions:  YES, the police DO monitor CB, or at least did in
the time period when I was playing with it.  They did it for safety's sake, of
course.  What if a motorist was injured, broken down, etc., and called for
help?  Shouldn't you friendly Texas Highway Patrol be able to come to their
assistance?  Seriously!

You appear to be questioning the legality of the police actions?  Aren't the
'offenders' actually aiding and abetting a lawbreaker (speeder?)  And would
you like your family to be endangered by such reckless behavior?

On the other side, there were some folks who felt that some cops didn't really
object to the warnings to other drivers because that had the desired effect.
Speeders slowed.  (unless their salaries were based on ticket quotas. then...)

There's really no right or wrong answer to all this.  Like the man says, "256
shades of grey."

>Brad Steinman

David

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Re: 381.380MHz Monitoring
Organization: HAM BBS, 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/v.32/pep)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 13:01:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.005133.16068@wicat.com> keithm@wicat.com (Keith McQueen) writes:
>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>
>>PJB113@psuvm.psu.edu (me) writes:
>>:     In the apartment complex where I live, the maintenance staff usehand-
>>: held radios tuned to 381.380MHz (a frequency allocated to millitary air-

When you measured this freq might you have been in the managers office?
What your seeing on the freq counter is most likley local noise from a 
computer or other office equipment or perhaps a UHF intrusion alarm
that blankets an office area. 
-- 
Gary W. Sanders gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org, 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JYV (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM BBS 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/V.32/PEP) Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)
From: neutron@stein.u.washington.edu (   )
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: - - - Freq. of Realistic FM Cordless Room Monitor (help request) - - -
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:40:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu


	I have one of these REALISTIC (Radio Shack) Cordless Room Monitors,
	and I would like to use my scanner as an additional monitor. The 
	monitor can be switched to 2 different frequencies. Can anybody help 
	me with these 2 frequencies? I opened it, and found two crystals (?)
	with the numbers 16.630 and 16.620, but these numbers did not
	work in my scanner.

	Does anybody know where can I get a list of frequencies for the
	SEATTLE area.  I used to have a fairly good one which I obtained
	from a local BBS called Scanner News, but it is becoming a little
	outdated.

	thanks,

	Ron.
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner