HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbs.sira@tsoft.net (Sira Vista)
Subject: Re: Roll Your Own Trunked Scanner?
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:00:32 GMT

> >conversation to follow?  You might end up tracking two cops discussing
> >donut shops while the fire people are dispatching a 6 alarm fire.
> 
> I would put a "FOLLOW" or "TRACK" button on the "scanner".
> 
> When the FOLLOW button is pressed, the software watches the digital
> control information appropriate to the activity on the channel you are
> currently monitoring.  You are then switched around along with everyone else
> on that channel.
> 
> Pressing FOLLOW again would return you to "scan" mode.  You would then be
> scanning all freqs in the trunked system till you again find one you wish to
> monitor.  You then push the FOLLOW/TRACK button again.
> 
> -- 
> Kevin Jessup, kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com
> 
>         "Friends don't let friends run DOS."
>                           -- Microware

Since we're talking about WISHES here, i thought i might toss in a cople
(couple) of mine.  
[on the pro-series from radio shack, perhaps SOME OTHER scanners have
 features simmilar. if so, lemme know.]

1) When in direct or limit searches, pressing the DIRECT/LIMIT button
  would pause the scanner at that frequency without storing it in any 
  memory or any such place.  Pressing the appropriate DIRECT/LIMIT button
  again would resume the search mode.  The only way to 'simulate' this is
  to turn SQUELCH all the way down and sufffer the noise if DELAY times 
  out.
2) be able to enter a frequency directly.  that is (perhaps) by entering 
  the sequence PGM 151.0400 PGM the scanner would jump to that frequency
  for monitoring.  From ther you could search or whatever.  This way you
  wouldn't need to program it and worry about where it's being stored.
  especially when entering something in a new range, say 900mhz when the 
  next highest freq. you have is 809mhz.  or when your searching for 
  a wireless something or another you can see with your eyes and you
  need to quickly try out the 30-46mhz range then the 151-156mhz range 
  and then the 450-470mhz range.  

it seems to me to just be a matter of software programming.

--
Sira Vista (bbs.sira@tsoft.net)
From: kbarger@cellar.org (Kyle Barger)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Buying advice wanted re: PRO-2024
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:28:50 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

I've been wanting a scanner for a while, and I saw tonight that Radio Shack
has the PRO-2024 on sale for $129.95.  The question is, is that a good idea?
I'm not really worried about lots of bells and whistles, and I don't have a
bunch of money to spend.  My only concern is that it won't do the 800 MHz
band.  The cheapest thing Radio Shack has that will do 800 MHz is $299.95
(that would be either the PRO-2022 base model or the PRO-39 handheld), and
there's no way I can spend that kind of money in the forseeable future.  On
the other hand, I'm willing to wait if I'm convinced that I won't be happy
without 800 MHz coverage.  So, I guess my questions are:

   - Is there anything to beware of about the 2024, other than the
     band coverage?

   - What exactly am I missing in the 800 MHz area, besides cellular
     phones (which I couldn't care less about)?  (I live in Delaware County,
     PA, in the suburbs of Philadelphia if anybody has specifics.)

   - I know nothing about other brands.  Is there anybody else that makes
     a scanner under, say, $200, that I should consider?

Many thanks for you help.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barger                     "Beauty, alas, is not relevant to Usenet."
kbarger@cellar.org      --Brendan Kehoe, _Zen and the Art of the Internet_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: djc@terapin.com (Don Coco)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: 800MHz Trunked Radio System Signals
Date: 24 Dec 92 08:14:34 PST
Organization: BBS

Well I am rather upset by our fire department going to this new system.  While
I realize that they need more channels I feel that I have the right to listen
to public services.  Apparently they feel differently.  Our new trunked system
is not complete yet but soon it will be and when I smell smoke, I will be
wondering where it is and have no way to find out short of hand scanning the 14
channels they are putting in.  These musical tones are a real hastle too.

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro 2006 mods
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:55:06 GMT

kmeyer@amiganet.chi.il.us (Karl Meyer) writes:
: I just got my Pro 2006 (thanks for the info leading to this choice people) and
: have already done the mod to get all teh frequencies. I was wondering if any of
: you have done that mod to give 6000 more channel memory spaces. I'm refering to
: the one in the Scanner Modification Book 1 and 2. If so does it work? I'm not
: afraid to dig into the innards to do some of this stuff but I don't want to be
: the guinea pig for it either. I'd also like to do the center frequency
: indicator, the search and scan to memory, the scan speed increase (only if it
: works with the previous one though), and a digital s meter. I'll be adding the
: line surge protection this week since I know it won't hurt anything.

The modification book states that the scan speed increase is not compatable
with one of the other mods, I think it was search and store to memory.

I will be doing the mods, once the warranty runs out on my new 2006.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Scanner sex?
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:07:52 GMT

In article <1hvgbjINNa17@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.229@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>
>>From csus.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!flash.pax.tpa.com.au!flash.pax.tpa.com.au!not-for-mail Thu Dec 31 10:56:25 PST 1992
>Article: 4351 of alt.sex.stories
>Path: netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!flash.pax.tpa.com.au!flash.pax.tpa.com.au!not-for-mail
>From: anon.184@pax.tpa.com.au
>Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
>Subject: An Incredible Affair - Electric Sex Discovery
>Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:27:33 +1030
>
>I've been dying to tell someone about this. I don't dare share it with
>my wife, my friends, or business associates. It's like a Priest sinking
>a hole in one (apologies to those not familiar with Golf) on Sunday...
>Who could he tell? I've been married for 15 years, got kids, and have a
>good sex life with my wife. I fantasize about other women from time to
>time, but I've never had an affair... Before now that is...
>
>On Thanksgiving weekend I was driving around town I own a scanner
>(radio), and was listening to police, fire, and medical stuff, run of
>the mill. Something prompted me to punch in a bank with cordless phone
>frequencies (programmed weeks before). I hadn't gone two blocks when I
>picked up a conversation between two women talking about their sex
>lives. The signal faded so I stopped the car and backed up till it came
>in strong.
>
>One woman was telling the other something of the fantasies she had. She

    And you just told us a fantasy of yours, expecting us to believe it.

  It it were true, I simply don't believe you would have felt the need to
share the story in such detail.



-- 
 Tim Tyler      Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735 
P.O. Box 443    C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Ypsilanti MI    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
48197
From: retzer@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Joe J Retzer)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Receiving Scrambled Transmissions
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:30:24 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: retzer@convex.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30
Originator: retzer@convex.csd.uwm.edu

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).

				    Many thanks in advance,
					Joe Retzer 
					N9QXL
From: asplund@usc.edu (Daryl)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: BC855 Modifications
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:19:34 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
Keywords: Bearcat, modification, cellular

Hello all scanner fans,

Does anyone have any modifications to the Bearcat 855XLT scanner?
I have seen one modified to 100 memory channels (from the stock 50).  Also,
I understand there is a cellular modification.

If anyone knows what these modifications are, PLEASE let me know.  
A friend received one as a gift, and we would like to get our hands inside 
the unit.

Please send all replies directly to me at:asplund@aludra.usc.edu.

Thank you in advance!
--Daryl
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us (Michael Borowiec)
Subject: Re: 800MHz Trunked Radio System Signals
Organization: HAM Radio Station N9EUZ, Naperville, IL
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:11:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.160901.26708@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 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.  While
>>I realize that they need more channels I feel that I have the right to listen
>>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.
>
>I'll admit that I sure do miss monitoring like I used to, but if
>I were a firefighter I sure would appreciate all the benefits of
>the new system (realizing that it is not a "right" to have to have
>uncoded, easy to listen to broadcasts for the general public...)
>
>Rob
>--
>Robert P. Dale                          <>      rdale@attserv.atms.purdue.edu
>University of Toledo                    <>      74010.302@compuserve.com
>Meteorology/Emergency Services          <>      N8GSK@K9IU.IN.USA.NOAM

This is interesting... Naperville, IL just put all their offices on a
new trunked system, including the Police Department. However they
have a seperate, single channel 800Mhz repeater for the Fire Dept.!
Actually, as sophisticated as the computer controls are, I would hate
to have to rely on anything more complicated than a simple repeater
if my life depended on it. The same Police Dept. also uses cellular
to dispatch to burglaries. I monitor the trunked system all the time.
Outside of having to lock out a different control channel once every
few hours, I have no problems... I'm only scanning ~20 freqs so it's
no big deal to add the 8 for the local trunked setup.
- Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Borowiec  (N9EUZ)  -  mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us  -  mikebo@isc.com
  >>> Dedicated to the Pursuit of Computer Assisted Time Dissipation <<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: What freq do these operate at?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:11:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.183340.723@uoft02.utoledo.edu> cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>Has anybody heard of a wireless device that will broadcast a video signal
>throughout a house?  It is supposed to allow other viewers in the house to
>watch the same program or movie or whatever.  I believe in plugs into the RF
>out of your VCR.  It then passes the VCR's output thru to the TV and also
>broadcasts the same signal, on some frequency, that allows other properly
>equipped TVs in the house to watch it also... I believe I saw the device
>in DAK....
>
>Anybody heard of it, or have any info on it????
>
>I wonder if my neighbors use one......*grin*
>

Brad, if my experience is of any value, it won't do your neighbors any good.
I bought one, at a friend's recommendation, and gave it a try.  About $70
down the drain...   Range was about 10 feet..( I should have realized that
my friend lived in an efficiency apt, and only xmtd from one room to next.)

I tried using improved antennas, no help.  Signal amp - no help.  Gave up
and now it rests in my junk bin.

David




>Later...
>
>
>Brad Steinman
>University of Toledo Computer Services
>cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
From: daemon@cs.utexas.edu (Background Processes)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: mail-to-news failure
Date: 3 Jan 1993 12:17:40 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

>> The way I read the FCC/APCO 16 A&B NPSPAC standards: one of the
>> interrupt a conversation in progress when it receives an emergency
>
>This is another typical mis-representation. Unless the transmitting
>unit is full-duplex, it will continue transmitting, blocking that

I was under the impression that when the Ebutton was pressed, that the
controller "ruthlessly pre-empted" the lowest priority user i.e. rips
the repeater out from under the user.  No?





x

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: "ken smith" <ken.smith@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: fcc and cordless fon
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:45:42 EST
Reply-To: "ken smith" <ken.smith@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

On 12-19-92 Morrejk typed the following regarding HELP! FCC AND CORDLESS 
PHONES

>  Newsgroup: alt.radio.scanner
> Message-ID: <1992Dec12.024339.4539@wkuvx1.bitnet>
>    Subject: HELP! FCC and Cordless Phones.
>
>  Someone on a local bbs here in Bowling Green, Ky is ragging me that
>listening to cordless conversations with a scanner is illegal, and
>against the FCC. 

I dont think he is correct on this. It is illegal to repeat anything you 
hear while listening to a cordless phone conversaion with your scanner but 
the act of listening itself is not illegal but this may vary in different 
states. In other words you are not supposed to go tell a friend about 
how your neighbor calls those sex lines with his cordless!! (smirk)


Cellular telephone reception is a different story. There have been laws 
passed making it illegal to listen. 


Ken

--- WinQwk 2.0 #0
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: pratt@utkvx2.utk.edu (Mark E. Pratt)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: 800MHz Trunked Radio System Signals
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:29:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92360.134725PJB113@psuvm.psu.edu>, me <PJB113@psuvm.psu.edu> writes...
>As more and more services switch to trunked systems, I'm sure the scanner
>companies will eventually develop scanners with trunking capabillities. I
>strongly believe that the same thing is true with digital encryption. Too
>much money is involved in communications monitoring for it to go down
>the tubes just because of trunking and encryption. -PJB
> 
>These are only my opinions.

I heard someone on the net talking a while back about boards you could by that
converts your scanner into a trunking radio, ie, it receives and translates the
computer data signals and automatically switches your frequencies.  There was a
board for the motorola trunk system (which my county uses), and another for, I
believe the GE (or the EF Johnson, I cant remember which)

I dont have much problem monitoring our trunk system.  We have 10 repeaters,
but as more agencies tie into the system, the radio traffic gets annoying.  
We have the city police, county police, city fire, county EMS, the
transportation system, the university police, and the university maintenence
all on the one system.  All in all, I think that most everyone is pleased with
the Motorola system.  It has only failed once, and luckily it was on a quiet
sunday morning.

Mark 
Pratt@utkvx.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: fcc and cordless fon
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:11:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.2173.1168@channel1> "ken smith" <ken.smith@channel1.com> writes:
>On 12-19-92 Morrejk typed the following regarding HELP! FCC AND CORDLESS 
>PHONES
>
>>  Someone on a local bbs here in Bowling Green, Ky is ragging me that
>>listening to cordless conversations with a scanner is illegal, and
>>against the FCC. 
>
>I dont think he is correct on this. It is illegal to repeat anything you 
>hear while listening to a cordless phone conversaion with your scanner but 
>the act of listening itself is not illegal but this may vary in different 
>states. In other words you are not supposed to go tell a friend about 
>how your neighbor calls those sex lines with his cordless!! (smirk)
>
>Cellular telephone reception is a different story. There have been laws 
>passed making it illegal to listen. 

Listening to cordless by anyone is NOT against the law on a federal (FCC)
level.  It is against the law in a handful of states as a result of those 
states passing their own laws against listening.  In fact, there have been
several cases where the police have listened/recorded/etc. cordless
phone converstaions without a wire tape order and that has been allowed in
court because there isn't any federal law prohibiting such listening.

As the reply above also notes...CELLULAR is a different story and there is
a federal law (the ECPA) which prohibits listening to cellular.  In
reality, even the ECPA is without teeth as no one can ever be prosecuted
for listening to cellular unless they admit to doing so.  The practical
application of the ECPA would require evidence of wrongdoing (listening
to cellular) that is probably all but impossible to obtain.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com
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
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 08:40:38 GMT

derek.buchler@channel1.com ("derek buchler") writes:
: 
: DB>derek.buchler@channel1.com ("derek buchler") writes:
: DB>:
: DB>: I think that it would be illegal to do such a thing since it is illegal
: DB>: to broadcast anything about police activity and law enforcement.   What
: DB>: you are suggesting is the equivalant (sp?) of my radar dector going off
: DB>: and then picking up my CB mike and relaying the info.  This is
: DB>: definitely a no-no.
: 
: BN>It is? It has been a rather commonplace practice for the last 30 years.
: 
: Commonplace, maybe.  Legal, no.

Hm. I wonder. It is illegal to disclose to someone else the contents of
such a radio communication, or even that a communication took place.
However, a radar signal is not a communication - it is a speed ranging
operation. As such, radar would not be covered under the Communications
Act of 1934. Nor is radar mentioned in the ECPA - as far as I know.

They might be able to get you for interfering with the enforcement of
laws and statutes. That would be questionable - it gets the traffic to
slow down. That would seem to be aiding the police in their efforts.

: BN>I know of no one who has ever been cited for such a practice.
: 
: I used to drive for a living (did repos back when I was in college) and
: I can atest to the fact that it is not permited to broadcast on a
: citizens band radio about police activity.  As a matter of fact, in the
: back of the manual that came with my CB is states that as well.

Do you still have the manual? If so, what law do they say is being
violated? I can find no such information in any of my manuals.

: I have seen, on a few occasions where I was talking to another driver
: about State Troopers and such that they were pulled over.
: 
: On a more comical note, I was once driving through the midwest and my
: radar detector went off.  I asked on my CB if anyone else's picked up
: the signal.  A few drivers indicated that Yes, and others indicated No.
: After a few minutes of discussing if it was a false alarm or not, the
: cop came on the radio and said that we were all blind and that he was
: hiding in the bushes.  He also told us that if we kept the speed under
: 70 mph, he'd leave us alone. :)

Hm - I wonder if someone was pulling your leg. It was my understanding
that the police only minitored the frequencies - and did not transmit
on them, except possibly in an emergency.

Bill

Xref: sparky alt.radio.scanner:3558 misc.emerg-services:5634
From: plaws@uafhp.uark.edu (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,misc.emerg-services
Subject: Scanner stuff Scanned
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:47:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: uafhp.Pine.3.05.9301031134.A6991-9100000
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Bored again at work today.  Scanned in Fire Alarm Box lists for Walpole
& Foxboro, Mass., as well as Station/Unit list for Montreal, Canada.  Mail
me if you want 'em.  (or tell me what ftp site to post them to...)

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: gregs@hotcity.COM (Greg Stramback)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Mods...
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:21:43 PST
Organization: BBS

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.

Okay.  For those that don't know, here's the statement.  If your radio /
scanner can't receive 800MHz when you purchase it, no modification (save for
one of those litte black boxes that converts your UHF band reception into
800MHz) can make your radio receive the 800MHz band.  You need an entire
seperate circuit in your radio to do so.  Some radios like the bearcat 100xlt
are capable of DISPLAYING the 800-900MHz frequencies on the screen, but do not
actually receive them, since they do not have the internal circuitry to do so. 
The 100xlt is a stripped down version of the 200xlt, using the same motherboard
etc.,.  but without the 800MHz reception board, and the different / extra
memory chip, stores 100 instead of 200 channels, and will not receive 800MHz.

greg
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: wvogel@MtHolyoke.edu (keeper of the tone)
Subject: Re: - - - Freq. of Realistic FM Cordless Room Monitor (help request) - - -
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:47:07 GMT

the xtals in the monitors are third overtone xtals

if my figureing is right the frequencies are 49.890 and 49.860 mhz

as for your other problem check your local RADIO SHACK store for their
frequency book ($9.95) it lists services by city and by frequency

have fun

wayne 
1 xmtr shy of a station