HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnw@bluemoon.use.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.)
Subject: Re: Can't listen to mobile CHP units
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 16:58:52 EST

49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon) writes:

> Does any body in the Bay Area have a hard time finding mobile CHP units on-
> 42-42.99, I have never heard no mobile units, the only transmissions I here
> hear is from Dispatch. Does any one have that problem?.
> 
> 
> Why do I have that problem, all the scanner freqency guides list 42.20, 42.40
> 
> 
       In Ohio the State Patrol uses one frequency for the base, and 
another one for the mobiles.  Many states use this for their state 
patrol/police.  If you are listening to just the base frequency that is 
why you never hear any mobiles.
 
         Secondly, mobiles have a much shorter range to a scanner antenns. 
I have found I can only hear a mobile if it is within say... 2-3 miles of 
where I'm at.   And since typically OSP only patrols state highways and 
interstates outside of any municipal location, my being in the city isn't 
much help, since all mobiles typically patrol a bit far from my place.
 

--
  ___                      _       _     __  _
 (   >      /            _//      ' )   /   // /
  __/______/_  ____      /         / / / o // /_  _  __  _   ________
 / /  (_) / /_/ / <_    /___ o    (_(_/ <_</_/ <_</_/ (_/_)_(_) / / <_
<_/     johnw@bluemoon.use.com     jwilkerson@delphi.com
From: 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Scanners Legal In Other Countries?
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:41:11 GMT
Reply-To: 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eb5ts4.ebay.sun.com

I often if scanners are legal in other countries?
What states outlaw scanners?

What is the best no name brand "flea market" out there?

What is the maximum range of a scanner?

If I went to Taiwan or the Phillipines would I find scanners for a real good
price?  

What scanners are made in foreign countries?


Bored to death at work!!!!!!!!!!

scannerman

Union City, Ca

I hope I get at least 1 response
From: jpotts@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (John Potts)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:51:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Tactical Callsigns (Military) Question.
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner

>/ hpspdla:alt.radio.scanner / chow@plasma.icsl.ucla.edu (Elvin Chou) / 11:49 pm  Nov 15, 1992 /
>I'm  sorry that this question may be a little inapropriate  on this newsgroup
>, but I got no response on rec.radio.shortwave, and figured there were many
>people here that might listen to military communication whether it be hf,vhf,
>uhf, and beyond.
>
>1) I was wondering if anybody know of the callsign, ICE07.   I heard it on
>   8997 kHz, a frequency that seems to be used by the USN in Antarctica.
>
>2) Has anybody noticed the repeated use of the callsign FOXTROT TANGO on
>   USN frequencies--11191kHz, 4735kHz, etc.? I have heard it used with other
>   3 character call signs (letter-number-letter and also one char. call signs
>   (letter) Does anyone know what this is?  Or what is the PLAYGROUND?
>
>3) does anyone know the some of the following callsigns--LONGHAND,MANGNOLIA,
>   BRONSON,BLUESTAR,PINSTRIPE.
>
>4) Is there any good references on these military callsigns so I don't have
>   to waste bandwidth asking questions like this.
>
>Once again, I am sorry for the HF intrusion on this newsgroup.
>
>
>---Elvin
>   chow@plasma.icsl.ucla.edu

----------
I don't have the information with me right now but can get it for you.
I am going on vacation for a couple of weeks and will try to email it to
you then.  I believe there is a book that lists many of the call signs
that you are hearing and I will try to find out what it is. 

The call signs you refer to in item 2 above are Navy tactical calls and
change quite frequently so a reference might not help you there.  The 
PLAYGROUND is the area where a Naval task force is conducting an
exercise, sometimes with live fire.

A good publication for this information is a magazine called Monitoring
Times (704-837-9200).  Hope to have more info in a few weeks.

Good Luck.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
       John Potts			jpotts@hpspdla.spd.hp.com
HP Stanford Park Division		   (415)-857-8219	
	Bldg 6U				Telnet 1-857-8219
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gregs@hotcity.COM (Greg Stramback)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Radio Shack's Scrambling Cordless Phone
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:03:05 PST
Organization: BBS

well, a voice scrambling phone might not be too bad.  however, if they're
scrambling the voice the way i think they are, with a phase shifting device,
there's no escape from me.  i have a device that takes care of the descrambling
for me.  a little fine tuning is all that's necessary
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: johnw@bluemoon.use.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.)
Subject: Re: What's your tattle level?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:42:42 EST

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

> mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us (Michael Borowiec) writes:
> 
> : The law was designed primarily to protect YOU from being monitored by
> : law enforcement agencies without a hard to obtain wiretap order. The
> 
> Bullshit. That law was written so the cellular phone operators could keep
> telling their customers that it is illegal to listen to the calls and let
> the customer convince themselves that the calls are secure.
> 
     I agree.  The law protects Big Business, so they can make more money 
to "contibute to campaign funds" and other such bribes.  Congresscritters 
care nothing for the individual...  Remember, in the good ol' us, $$ 
talks... all else walks.
 

--
  ___                      _       _     __  _
 (   >      /            _//      ' )   /   // /
  __/______/_  ____      /         / / / o // /_  _  __  _   ________
 / /  (_) / /_/ / <_    /___ o    (_(_/ <_</_/ <_</_/ (_/_)_(_) / / <_
<_/     johnw@bluemoon.use.com     jwilkerson@delphi.com
      "Save a life.... Kill a druggie scumbag today"  -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: What's your tattle level?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:30:41 GMT

mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us (Michael Borowiec) writes:

>equipment to de-multiplex and listen to these channels. By your standard
>these transmissions are fair game because they are not encrypted.

	I think you are talking (in part) apples and oranges here.
Anyone who goes out and spends beaucoups bucks on that sort of
equipment is obviously there for more than just casual listening -
probably to obtain economically viable information.  Or in otherwords,
he is breaking several laws already WITHOUT the ECPA or the stupid
scanner ban.

	The spirit of laws defending citizens' rights is good.  The
implementation - taking away our rights to a segment of the spectrum -
sets a horrid precedent for any special interest group to do likewise.

>than anything else. Are we a bunch of busybodies who want to eavesdrop
>on phone calls? Maybe we're only creeps who get off listening to the
>neighbors' baby monitor? (That's legal...) Sorry, I find your position
>indefensible and so do the majority of lawmakers (who tend to use
>cellular more than almost anyone).
>- Mike

	Mike, that is what *I* call conflict of interest.  For them to make
such a law because it affects *them*, rather than considering how it affects
the REST of the folks that they (supposedly) represent is absolutely
indefensible.  The fact that it happens points out the corruptness of
our congresscritters.

	To me it is indefensible to expect ALL citizens to give up their 
rights to listening to X segment of the spectrum so that some special interest
group can have some alleged privacy.  It should be incumbant upon those
who transmit in that spectrum to encrypt or scramble any communications
they do not want the whole world to hear, or DON'T use it!

	As an Amateur Radio Operator, would you discuss intimate details
of your life on, say, 80 meters?  I seriously doubt it.  Would you discuss
an important business deal there?  Probably not.

	If the cellular industry had not outright LIED to their clients
in the first place by telling them that their communications were
secure we'd never have had this problem.  If they had not lobbied their
good buddies in congress, we would not have had this problem.  And if
they had been remotely concerned with anyones "rights", there would be
encryption in place NOW rather than a bad law which ought to be overturned
in court.

Duane
From: gary@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Gary Mr.VAX Buchholz)
Subject: Re: AR2500 Evaluation
Reply-To: gary@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:17:09 GMT

I have also owned a AR2500.  I took ACE up on the 30 day free trial and
sent mine back.

Here are some of my reasons. . .

1) I could never receive any USB/LSB with the BFO.  The smallest tuning
   increment remains 5 Khz.  If you want to monitor the ham bands you 
   really need a 2.5Khz increment or better.  The BFO just doesn't make
   it on this radio for LSB/USB.  Even when I located a ham station with
   my Kenwood TS-850 (on 20m), I was still unable to tune it in even though
   I knew the exact freq.  I have little hope for the handheld SSB/BFO
   version of the AR1000.

2) This is properly a mobile unit.  The speaker is on the bottom -- facing
   the table if you try to use it as a desktop unit.

3) Display is too hard to see.

4) Its not portable in that it does not run on any self contained battery.

5) Its cheaply constructed .., looks ugly.

6) The automatic frequency sort will drive you up the wall unless you
   use a spreadsheet or dadabase program to track the freqs.

7) Its not trivial to program via the RS232 port.  There are funny 
   timing restrictions.

8) Its too "light" (mass-wise).  Pressing a button will send it skidding 
   across the table.

9) Front-end overload and no bandpass filtering is a problem.

Other than these minor faults, its a great radio.

Gary
-- 
Gary Buchholz / KE9ZM			Internet: gary@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago			Packet:   KE9ZM@N9HSI.IL.USA.NA
Academic and Public Computing		
1155 East 60'th St., Chicago, Ill.	(312) 702-7611
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: ngdodge@vela.acs.oakland.edu (ngdodge)
Subject: Mod Request
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:22:25 GMT

Hello,

   Can anyone help me?  I am looking
for mods for my two meter transceiver,
an Alinco DJ-120T and my Realistic 
handheld scanner PRO-38.  I know of
only a few ftp sites with mods and
none were available for either radios.
Any E-mail responses would be greatly
appreciated.  
   Thanks!

-Nick
From: urbina@novax.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Need best place to mail order AOR-3000 (best price)
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:11:48 GMT


I'd like to know the best place to mail order an AOR-3000 (best price).
Also, I want to hear from any users of this scanner, how do you like it
good points, bad points etc.

Should I go for this scanner or should I buy the 2006 ?
Opinions appreciated. I already have an Icom R-1.

Guy
Urbina@novax.llnl.gov
From: james.cromarty@nitelog.com (James Cromarty) 
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: 2006
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:15:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Nitelog BBS - Monterey, CA - 408-655-1096
Reply-To: james.cromarty@nitelog.com (James Cromarty) 

Earlier in the week I posted the number to MaryMac in Kady Texas as
an alternative to buying your 2006 scanner at the local Radio
Shack. I made an error in my typing and put the price as $235.
Someone caught the error and brought it to my attention. I
accidently transposed the numbers, what I meant to type was about
$325.00 for the 2006.

I apologize for the confusion. Either way if you are in the market
for a scanner you might want to call them and check out their
prices.

1-800-231-3680

BTW I am not affiliated with them. Just a satisfied customer.
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #0:"Its a great day for hockey." Badger Bob Johnson
From: chuck@cmhcsys.cmhcsys.com (Chuck Stickelman)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:44:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CMHC Systems

In article <13159@optilink.UUCP>, calley@optilink.UUCP (Chris Calley) writes:
> From article <1992Nov10.082413.22409@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, by billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson):
> > jfreem@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Joe Freeman) writes:
> > 
> > : What if they were running a crack house, molesting little kids
> > : or ripping your other neighbors off?  You would be as low
> > : as the people doing the deed if you didn't even anonomusly
> > : help (at the least).  
> > 
> > If they were molesting people, or robbing people - then certainly.
> > They are then harming other people. They are not doing so by running
> > a crack house.
> > 
> I believe that you are incorrect.  Furnishing crack cocaine to someone is 
> not only harming the buyer, but indirectly diminishing the quality of life
> for those in that neighborhood, and for us taxpayers as a whole.  Who pays
> when a crack addict ends up at the county hospital from an o.d.?  In the
> long run, it's you and me in the form of ever higher health care costs and
> taxes.
> 
> In one sense, when you eavesdrop on someones _private_ conversation, you
> become a party to that conversation and are therefore responsible for
> what you here.  If you condone the illegal actions of those you are 
> eavesdropping on, by all means DON'T turn them in.  But, if you believe that
> what they are doing is wrong, then be true to your convictions and report
> them to whoever.  But what you should not do is hide your head in the
> sand and pretend you didn't hear anything at all.  Or even worse, try to
> rationalize that what they are doing is not actually harming anyone.  That
> is an old argument that circumvents the real issue of right and wrong.
> If you don't want to take responsibility for what you may hear, then 
> don't eavesdrop on private conversations.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christopher A. Calley - all opinions are my own... etc.
> email: 	calley@optilink.com

Lets think about this for a moment.  You here the bad people doing _very_
bad things.  You call the authorities.  They make an arrest(s).  It goes
to court.  They (the lawyers, judges, who ever) find that the evidence
was obtained illegally.  What happens next?

Chuck Stickelman
chuck@cmhcsys.cmhcsys.com
From: ashabana@agsm.ucla.edu (Ahmed Shabana)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Finding Mobile Units
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:09:21 GMT

Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith) writes:

>I've got one local cab company that does this (ie: tx on one freq, rx
>on another).  Any idea why they don't want the mobiles to hear each
>other?  Are the drivers competing against eachother, despite the fact
>they're in the same company?  Naw..that wouldn't work, as the dispatch
>would relay the pick-up location, and thus all the cabbies would hear
>it.  Are they just trying to prevent chit-chat?  Seems like a stupid system
>to me.

>-ks

I talked to a cabbie here in Los Amgeles about their system and it
turns out that they indeed compete against each other in a way. First
each driver owns the cab they drive and not the company. Second they have
a system of bidding for fares. Depending on how bad you place this bid
with the dispatcher and that is probably why they don't want them to
hear each other. 

Hope that makes sense

Ahmed
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Ahmed A. Shabana	         |" Bill, now you can get rid of THAT watch"
Anderson Graduate School of Mgmt.| Omega watches commercial aired on
U.C.L.A.                         | Election day referring to Clinton's Timex
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler)
Subject: TV signals in upper 200 mhz ?
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:03:47 GMT

     I was playing with my scanner last night and
     found I could pick up TV channel audio every
     6 mhz starting from 257.762 to 293 mhz or so.

     From my understanding it shouldn't be there.

     what gives? ( i was using a pro-43 )

dave
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: smith@acpy01.att.com (Bob Smith (CXNIXPT1))
Subject: Re: fast food frequencies
Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA)
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:24:48 GMT

In article <BRIAN.92Nov20152156@ganglion.Canada.Sun.Com> brian@ganglion.Canada.Sun.Com (Brian Onn - OpCom Staff) writes:
>
>There has been some discussion recently about Fast Food frequencies.
>
>Now, I'm curious... what could one possibly find interesting to listen
>to here?  
(stuff deleted)

There is a McDonalds about 1 mile from my home and am (barely) able
to hear the order frequency. Here is a conversation that occurred
recently (M = McDonalds, C = woman customer).

M: Welcome to Hillsborough McDonalds. May I take your order?
C: I'll have 2 Happy Meals, Big Mac and fries.
M: What kind of drinks with the Happy Meals?
C: Orange, please.
M: Will there be anything else?
C: I'll have a vanilla shake and that's it.
M: Okay. That's one Happy Meal, Big Mac, ... 
C: (interrupts) No. That's 2 Happy Meals.
M: Sorry. Okay. That's 2 Happy Meals, 2 Cokes, ...
C: (interrupts) No! That's two orange drinks.
(pause - can hear the woman talking to someone in the car about this guy)
M: Okay. That's 2 Happy Meals with orange sodas, one chocolate shake, ...
C: (interrupts) No! That's a vanilla shake. Hey, am I on Candid Camera
   or something!

The woman finally got her order straight. Guess the guy was having a
bad day.  :')

Bob Smith
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: parnass@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Bob Parnass, AJ9S)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:42:53 GMT
Summary: new cordless phones need not be channelized

In article <kg76801@pro-berks.cts.com>,
kenlager@pro-berks.cts.com (Kenneth P. Lager Jr.) writes:

 > Here are the cordless phone frequencies for whomever it was that asked for
 > them before.  If there are any discrepencies, please tell me.
 > 
 >            1            46.61O           49.670
 >            2            46.63O           49.845

I think the FCC now permits cordless phones to operate in
between the former 10 channels although cordless phone manufacturers
had successfully lobbied the FCC for a delay in new "freedom."
  
 >You should be able to hear both sides of the conversation on either the base or 

Yes.

 > handset frequencies

No, not in my experience.

 > due to the telephone hybrid circuitry.


-- 
==============================================================================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S  -  AT&T Bell Labs  -  parnass@ihlpm.att.com - (708)979-5414
From: plaws@uafhp.uark.edu (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Scanner X-reference List
Date: 19 Nov 1992 12:17:02 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Reply-To: Peter Laws <plaws@uafhp.uark.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


> In article <Pine.3.05.9211181218.A29322-a100000@uafhp.uark.edu> you write:
> >So here's my idea:  Help me create a "cross reference" list for all the
> >different brands for Bob Parnass to include in his updated scanner FAQ. 
> ...
> >Peter Laws,
> >Associate Editor, 
> >RCMA _Journal_
> 
A number of people have written to me re: the X-ref. list (thank you) and I
have realized that I might of made it look like Bob Parnass' scanner.FAQ is
somehow related to RCMA.

It is not.  (although we would like it to be...)

Unless he says otherwise, credit lies *entirely with Bob Parnass*.  Sorry
for any confusion.

Peter Laws,
Associate Editor, 
RCMA _Journal_

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: as_radfo@csd.uwe.ac.uk (AS Radford)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Manuals!
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:37:02 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol

Oh, boy!  As usual in these cases, I sorted it out about five minutes
after posting the appeal!  What seems to happen is that bank and
channel ARE entered consecutively, and as soon as the second digit is
entered it returns to the search in whatever bank it was previously.
Since there is no acknowledgement, it SEEMS that the store has failed,
but, in fact, the info is there.  Aaaaaaargh!

Thanks to those who responded.
-- 
  Arthur Radford
  University of the West of England      -------------------------------
  BRISTOL, BS16 1QY, UK                	      Esperanto parolata
  as_radfo@uk.ac.uwe.csd                 -------------------------------
From: cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Vtech 900dx Cordless Freqs.
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:19:35 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:
>  johnw@bluemoon.rn.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.) writes:
>>
>>    I have heard however, that most if not all of the 900 cordless phones 
>>employ digital encryption.  Montioring those would be useless.
>> 
>>
>      There's a huge amount of misinformation being perpetuated over
> digitization.
>  
>     Just because analog voice is codec'ed over to digital data for the RF
> circuit, it isn't necessarily encrypted.
>  
>      I suppose that for people with the capability of monitoring these
> systems, the public ignorance will benefit them, as is the case with
> cellular phones.
> 
I agree with Tim.  Even though the manufacturer claims that it is enctypted, it
may not be at all.  Just it being a digital transmitter could (in their minds)
could be "effective encryption".  After all, people were suprised that scanner
enthusiasts were able to listen to their cell phones, after the MANUFACTERS
told them they were secure!

Are they actaully encrypted?

BTW: Is there any digital to analog converters for sale ?
         (before the law takes affect?)
 
Brad Steinman
University of Toledo Computer Services
cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
QUIT
ces
cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
From: mattho@heifer.lbl.gov (Matt Ho)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Code 33 tone
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:18:05 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mattho@heifer.lbl.gov (Matt Ho)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.96
Keywords: tone

What does the code 33 tone sound like? (short tone/long tone, how far
apart)

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: rrichman@access.digex.com (Ray Richman)
Subject: Wanted, Drive Through Window Frequencies-Lets HEAR som Stories!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:17:44 GMT

The only one I know off-hand is MCDONALDS.  Actually they have two, but
OFFHAND I know only the common one.
-----> 154.570 Mhz
 It's got a range of apx 1/2 mile or so.
I want to hear some of the more OR less INTRESTING stories heard from a
drive-thru/freq of a drive thru.  It's possible...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Ray Richman-|rrichman@access.digex.com|Ray <70712.3403@compuserve.com>