From: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 18:15:10 EST
Looking for trunked radio information?
Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Radar Detecters
From: Chris Fortner <forts@rogers.com>
2. RE: pocsag decoding help??
From: "Chris's Newgroup Email" <group@irisreg.com>
3. RE: Radar Detecters
From: "Jayce, MD2b" <jayce_jayce@hotmail.com>
4. Re: Re: Radar Detecters
From: Bryan <bryanpass@rogers.com>
5. Re: pocsag decoding help??
From: "glen282001 <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>
6. RE: Re: pocsag decoding help??
From: "Chris's Newgroup Email" <group@irisreg.com>
7. Admin: radar detectors
From: "sjones2" <sjones2@mobile.rogers.com>
8. Re: Brant Taxi possibly going digital as well
From: Paul Schmidt <pschmidt@interlog.com>
9. Re: Radar Detecters
From: "Brad Smith" <lists@bpsmicro.dyndns.org>
10. UWO London
From: "Rob" <rlkillins@sympatico.ca>
11. Re: UWO London
From: Arthur Shulman <dentist@nornet.on.ca>
12. Re: Re: Radar Detecters
From: Arthur Shulman <dentist@nornet.on.ca>
13. Re: Re: Brant Taxi possibly going digital as well
From: "radio" <radio@slakeyourthirst.com>
14. Re: Re: Radar Detecters
From: "radio" <radio@slakeyourthirst.com>
15. Re: Re: Radar Detecters
From: Arthur Shulman <dentist@nornet.on.ca>
16. Re: digital card
From: "va3wxm <va3wxm@sympatico.ca>" <va3wxm@sympatico.ca>
17. Re: Re: pocsag decoding help??
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
18. Re: Re: Radar Detecters
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
19. Division 32 talk group...
From: rsh@idirect.com
20. Re: Re: Radar Detecters
From: Zach Samson <phillyflyers50@comcast.net>
21. Re: Division 32 talk group...
From: "Michael Fenech" <mfenech@sympatico.ca>
22. Re: Division 32 talk group...
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
23. 410.8625 ??
From: "Steve St. Denis" <steve.st@sympatico.ca>
24. RE: 410.8625 ??
From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca>
25. RE: 410.8625 ??
From: "Champ" <Champ@scanneraudio.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:16:32 -0500
From: Chris Fortner <forts@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Radar Detecters
At 11:47 PM 1/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Which radar dectecters would work on the OPP radars.
Any detector will work. All North Amercian police radar is either X, K or
Ka band.... Just be sure to get a detector that is VG-2 undetectable..
(VG-2 is the radar detector detector)..
As for warning range, it can be anywhere from a few miles to maybe a few
hundred feet, depending on conditions... What you have to watch out for
these days though is Laser.... Only good defense against that is to be
driving the speed limit!
Chris Fortner
London, Ontario Canada
forts@rogers.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:16:45 -0500
From: "Chris's Newgroup Email" <group@irisreg.com>
Subject: RE: pocsag decoding help??
Thanks everyone. I believe that it works and appreciate all your help.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: ted hay [mailto:tedh1@sympatico.ca]
Sent: January 28, 2003 5:25 AM
To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Scanont] pocsag decoding help??
There's a program called Slicer to check your data slicer if its never
been tested before. Its very useful to make sure you have it working
properly.
Ted
Chris's Newgroup Email wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time testing out my data sliced. Does anyone have
> a few "for sure" frequencies in the GTA I can use to test POC32?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Chadis [mailto:alex@chadis.net]
> Sent: January 21, 2003 12:42 PM
> To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Scanont] pocsag decoding help??
>
> You want to find a program called POC32, which will use a scanner and
> your soundcard to decode POCSAG. We used this program when building a
> small system to test and make sure the stuff was going out right.
> Neat program, falses here and there, but for the most part dead on.
>
> I think that'll save the most amount of time and money....
>
> In the US, monitoring a system like that is considered a no-no
> legally, FWIW. I have NO idea what IC has to say in this instance.
>
> Of course, this won't work for anything other than POCSAG (and maybe
> GOLAY)
>
> -Alex
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Lamar Lugli wrote:
>
> > I built a few of these 4 level decoders about a year ago. I used
> > the 2/4 combined model plan from trunked radio, but changed a few
> > things on it for improved performance such as the 2'level op-amp
> > design and the pull-up resistors. (more details available on
> > request)
> >
> > VHF is mostly pocsag paging, while 900mhz (928-932 mhz) range is
> > mostly flex. Most paging in general is pretty boring. Ambulance is
> > on
>
> > vhf with pocsag512. One toronto taxi company occupies most of one
> > flex channel in 928 range, and the others are mostly real-estate
> > people. It is all pretty routine, with the rare funny message for a
> > laugh.
> >
> > I have a good program to decode both pocsag/flex on a 4-level
> > slicer. free. I think it is pocflex 2.06, but it has been a while.
> >
> > Lamar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 10:28 AM, glen282001
> > <unicorn1717@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > I wanted to build a 4 level FSK decoder circuit, and
> > > I was wondering if anyone else in the group has tried this. I have
> > > a
>
> > > few questions though...
> > > 1) Which circuit worked the best for you?- (i've seen a couple at
> > > trunked radio.net)
> > > 2) which software decoding program works the best?
> > > (there seem to be numerous decoding app's out there for download
> > > but
>
> > > some are listed as only working on an evaluation basis... like for
> > > 15 minutes at a time!!
> > > 3) what is the most prevalent mode in the GTA?
> > > Pocsag, super pocsag, or golay? Are the modes encountered specific
> > > to any network ie: Rogers wireless, or Bell ?
> > > 4) anything interesting to monitor???
> > > I'm hoping so, but if not, it would still be a fun project.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Glen H.,
> > > Oshawa Scannist
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > HGTV Dream Home Giveaway
> >
> > Looking for trunked radio information?
> > Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
>
> Looking for trunked radio information?
> Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> Looking for trunked radio information?
> Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Looking for trunked radio information?
Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:21:06 -0500
From: "Jayce, MD2b" <jayce_jayce@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Radar Detecters
Being a self-proclaimed speed guru, I highly recommend the Valentine V1. If
it is out of your price-range, the K40 works very nicely. The V1 and K40
are both VG2 protected. Bel, Whistler, Cobra etc all have fancy bells and
whistles, but let's face it, you really do NOT need your detector to have a
built-in compass! Another nice thing with the V1 is that you can reprogram
it to work in Europe.
X band is almost extinct, K and Ka are the most common bands for radar, and
as Chris mentioned, laser is your new enemy. However, laser can usually be
beat in court (the guns shoot out 2-5 beams of light so Smokey may have
accidentally hit another car), or get the Lidatek laser jammer (there are
cheaper versions by other companies but Likdatek has always worked for me).
However, even the best detectors pick up many false alarms, especially near
stores - but cops know this and have traps (in London, on Oxford St. just
west of Adelaide is a favorite).
Now here's something to consider - radar detectors are pretty illegal in
Canada but laser detetectors/jammers are not. So, if you do end up being
pulled over via laser and the cop finds your machine, I don't think that
there's a whole lot that can be done. Radar jammers are junk.
On a side-note, the OPP are now using very stealthy vehicles (I passed a
unmarked, tinted, medium-gray, regular wheels, single exhaust, no antennae
etc impala the other day - 20 mins later, he lit me up, another story for
another day :-) ) so have some good eyes along with the electronic toys!
Thanks,
Jason Smith
---
"I don't break the speed limit, I simply alter it to suit myself!"
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Fortner [mailto:forts@rogers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:17 AM
To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Scanont] Radar Detecters
At 11:47 PM 1/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Which radar dectecters would work on the OPP radars.
Any detector will work. All North Amercian police radar is either X, K or
Ka band.... Just be sure to get a detector that is VG-2 undetectable..
(VG-2 is the radar detector detector)..
As for warning range, it can be anywhere from a few miles to maybe a few
hundred feet, depending on conditions... What you have to watch out for
these days though is Laser.... Only good defense against that is to be
driving the speed limit!
Chris Fortner
London, Ontario Canada
forts@rogers.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244396.2846622.4218523.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17050631
08:HM/A=1414307/R=0/*https:/www.clearcredit.com/registration/default.asp?n=b
&cpID=c01888p1379&ckID=gen14628>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244396.2846622.4218523.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1414307/rand=471493350>
Looking for trunked radio information?
Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:27:57 +0000
From: Bryan <bryanpass@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Radar Detecters
> What you have to watch out for
> these days though is Laser.... Only good defense against > that is to be driving the speed limit!
I've seen laser radar detectors, I've been told that they aren't as effective against them, but they do work.
Howstuffworks.com has a whole section on how radar detectors work: http://www.howstuffworks.com/radar-detector.htm
Interesting stuff.. :)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:55:40 -0000
From: "glen282001 <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: pocsag decoding help??
--- In scanont@yahoogroups.com, "Chris's Newgroup Email" <group@i...>
wrote:
> I am having a hard time testing out my data sliced. Does anyone
have a
> few "for sure" frequencies in the GTA I can use to test POC32?
>
Hi.
I just got into this myself.
Some very active freqs for gta are;
149.770 lots of Pocsag 1200bps
164.820 pocsag 512bps
163.470 pocsag 512
167.100 pocsag 512
929.2875 flex 6400bps, and others
929.4875 ""
929.4125
931.5625
I have just built a 4 level interface,but still have bugs to work out
My best results, have been with the TL082 OP amp circuit from trunked
radio. net, which is supposed to be a 2 level decoder, yet winflex is
showing decoded messages at Flex 6400bps, 4 level !??
Try out winflex software (freeware)(any search engine should find
this under "pager decoding").
Sure would be need to find a decoding utility for Mobitex (blackberry
pagers) although that has been said not to exist.
regards,
Glen H.
Oshawa
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:17:52 -0500
From: "Chris's Newgroup Email" <group@irisreg.com>
Subject: RE: Re: pocsag decoding help??
That is the same interface that I have built. I appreciate you advice
on winflex and will give that a shot. Thanks Glen!
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: glen282001 <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>
[mailto:unicorn1717@hotmail.com]
Sent: January 28, 2003 8:56 AM
To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Scanont] Re: pocsag decoding help??
--- In scanont@yahoogroups.com, "Chris's Newgroup Email" <group@i...>
wrote:
> I am having a hard time testing out my data sliced. Does anyone
have a
> few "for sure" frequencies in the GTA I can use to test POC32?
>
Hi.
I just got into this myself.
Some very active freqs for gta are;
149.770 lots of Pocsag 1200bps
164.820 pocsag 512bps
163.470 pocsag 512
167.100 pocsag 512
929.2875 flex 6400bps, and others
929.4875 ""
929.4125
931.5625
I have just built a 4 level interface,but still have bugs to work out My
best results, have been with the TL082 OP amp circuit from trunked
radio. net, which is supposed to be a 2 level decoder, yet winflex is
showing decoded messages at Flex 6400bps, 4 level !??
Try out winflex software (freeware)(any search engine should find
this under "pager decoding").
Sure would be need to find a decoding utility for Mobitex (blackberry
pagers) although that has been said not to exist.
regards,
Glen H.
Oshawa
Looking for trunked radio information?
Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:21:16 -0400
From: "sjones2" <sjones2@mobile.rogers.com>
Subject: Admin: radar detectors
Guys, this topic is not a scanning matter. Please take the discussion elsewhere.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:31:18 -0500
From: Paul Schmidt <pschmidt@interlog.com>
Subject: Re: Brant Taxi possibly going digital as well
On January 27, 2003 05:33 pm, R.S. (Bob) Heuman wrote:
> IC cannot make it illegal to LISTEN to Digital, but they can refuse to
> provide a TAC to any scanner that permits you to listen to digital. That
> still obviously permits you to acquire said scanner outside Canada and
> bring it into Canada so that you can listen to digital. IC cannot prevent
> that! What their action does is rob Canada and the provinces of their share
> of the revenue as taxes will not be collected by the retailer when selling
> such a scanner to you in Canada. Instead there are several choices...
>
> 1. Buy outside Canada and have it shipped into Canada hoping that no one
> notices that it is digital and therefore that it makes it to your address.
> 2. Buy outside Canada and bring it into Canada in your car or other method
> of transport across the border [[boat/airplane/trailer,etc...]
> 3. Buy outside Canada and carry it on your person as you come into Canada.
> As in the US and other nations it is perfectly legal, you can have it
> xray'd and carry it and it is likely to be undetected on arrival unless you
> undergo a body search <grin>
Wanna bet, when you bring something into Canada, the feds still take their 7%
GST, unless you fail to declare it, and then you can get a new address, the
Kingston Pen. Now of course customs may not care if "a radio receiver" is an
all out digital scanner, or a ordinary boom box. I doubt many of them would
be trained to know the difference.
> They are small, they are light, and they are receivers only, so they are,
> relatively speaking, undetectable in the overall clutter of radio wave
> propogation in the world today.
>
> So, IC can make them illegal as they are lacking a TAC, and can make it
> difficult to buy but they cannot stop you from listening, from buying the
> parts as per the RS parts list, from assembling your own, from buying
> outside Canada, etc. It is more a question of how much YOU want to have it
> than it is of their preventing you from having it....
One thing that would be perfectly legal, go find an old computer, (heck that
Commie 64 sitting in the corner of the basement would probably be powerful
enough), wire in a demodulator that would give you the actual digital bits,
(I wonder how different a 9600 baud digital radio signal is from a 9600baud
modem signal), now convert the bits into something your sound chip can
handle, and feed it through a set of PC speakers, voila a perfectly legal
digital scanner, and there is nothing that the IC could do about it.
I wonder how long it will be, before someone packages the software and
hardware into a box and sells this legal device for listening to digital
signals.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:57:31 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" <lists@bpsmicro.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: Radar Detecters
OPP is using new "Spectre" Radar Detector Detectors, having replaced the old
VG2's. This new RDD picks up *every* detector on the market. I can tell you
from first-hand experience that no detector is safe.
People with the ultra-expensive units that have previously been "stealth"
*are* being caught every day, particularly on the 400-series highways. The
units are confiscated, and the driver left with a $170 ticket (used to be a
$500 ticket; don't know when it was lowered).
So my advice is not to bother. They *are* running the new RDDs in your neck
of the woods every day. See http://www.spectre-rdd.com/spectre.html for more
details.
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:47:29 -0500
> From: "Champ" <Champ@scanneraudio.com>
> Subject: Radar Detecters
>
> Which radar dectecters would work on the OPP radars.
>
> Yes, I know they're illegal to use (When Mobile), but it'd be nice to
> know if they're out there, before, I leave the house.
>
> What kind of range would one of these suckers have?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:32:13 -0500
From: "Rob" <rlkillins@sympatico.ca>
Subject: UWO London
In the TAFL listings there are numerous frequencies for UWO. Do they run an internal trunking system? Or are they just conventional frequencies? Just curious ... want to know how to program them in for future visits.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:31:21 -0500
From: Arthur Shulman <dentist@nornet.on.ca>
Subject: Re: UWO London
You can likely infer what they are running from the listings. Grouped 800 mhz suggests trunking.
Arthur
Rob wrote:
> In the TAFL listings there are numerous frequencies for UWO. Do they run an internal trunking system? Or are they just conventional frequencies? Just curious ... want to know how to program them in for future visits.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Looking for trunked radio information?
> Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:39:13 -0500
From: Arthur Shulman <dentist@nornet.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Re: Radar Detecters
I was not aware of this technology, Brad. We are still looking for a local
oscillator here, though. Cloaking technology just uses a non-traditional IF
freq, so the LO was not detected by the VG-2 receiver. Doesn't seem so
revolutionary, viewed that way.
Still, more sophisticated detectors with an out-of-range LO might escape
detection. Just a matter of what the public is willing to pay, perhaps, for
immunity.
It seem to me that if I were to load a spectrum analyzer (scanner???) into the
passenger seat of a vehicle, and the 1st IF was, say, 2 ghz, it might not
trigger a response.
Thoughts?
Arthur
Brad Smith wrote:
> OPP is using new "Spectre" Radar Detector Detectors, having replaced the old
> VG2's. This new RDD picks up *every* detector on the market. I can tell you
> from first-hand experience that no detector is safe.
>
> People with the ultra-expensive units that have previously been "stealth"
> *are* being caught every day, particularly on the 400-series highways. The
> units are confiscated, and the driver left with a $170 ticket (used to be a
> $500 ticket; don't know when it was lowered).
>
> So my advice is not to bother. They *are* running the new RDDs in your neck
> of the woods every day. See http://www.spectre-rdd.com/spectre.html for more
> details.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:47:29 -0500
> > From: "Champ" <Champ@scanneraudio.com>
> > Subject: Radar Detecters
> >
> > Which radar dectecters would work on the OPP radars.
> >
> > Yes, I know they're illegal to use (When Mobile), but it'd be nice to
> > know if they're out there, before, I leave the house.
> >
> > What kind of range would one of these suckers have?
>
> Looking for trunked radio information?
> Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:27:17 -0500
From: "radio" <radio@slakeyourthirst.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Brant Taxi possibly going digital as well
A couple of companies around here have started using voice inversion to cut down on being scooped. Taxi's have been deregulated here and they're many new gypsy cabs on the streets now.
I've never known of a dispatch company's( or any company for that matter) management to be totally up front with those that work for them so could VI have been confused with or implied as digital in this instance?
J.
"Just watch me." Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1970
----- Original Message -----
From: Gord <bassmaster_65321@yahoo.com>
To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:25 AM
Subject: [Scanont] Re: Brant Taxi possibly going digital as well
I work at Brant Taxi as a driver and I can tell ya we won't be going
to computerized dispatching anytime soon, just that we have to
implement a digital radio system from what I have been told......
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:35:43 -0500
From: "radio" <radio@slakeyourthirst.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Radar Detecters
What are the traditional and non-traditional IF ranges used with these units?
J.
"Just watch me." Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1970
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Shulman
To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Scanont] Re: Radar Detecters
I was not aware of this technology, Brad. We are still looking for a local
oscillator here, though.....
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:43:10 -0500
From: Arthur Shulman <dentist@nornet.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Re: Radar Detecters
I don't recall - I knew a couple of years ago. There used to be an excellent web
site that dealt with traffic radar across North America. I'll see if its still
there & get back to you this evening.
100 or 200 mhz rings a bell, but that seems too low.
Arthur
radio wrote:
> What are the traditional and non-traditional IF ranges used with these units?
>
> J.
>
> "Just watch me." Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1970
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Arthur Shulman
> To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Scanont] Re: Radar Detecters
>
> I was not aware of this technology, Brad. We are still looking for a local
> oscillator here, though.....
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Looking for trunked radio information?
> Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:22:33 -0000
From: "va3wxm <va3wxm@sympatico.ca>" <va3wxm@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: digital card
Yeah, what are the rules regarding digital audio (not PSK31, etc.)
use by amateurs in Canada? I know Alinco came out with a digital
card for some of their radios but I haven't heard anymore about
it. Did IC ban those too or just "neglect" to type accept them?
Some food for thought... I came across an article from ARRL about
some ARES groups in the US experimenting with the APCO P25 digital
mode to facilitate communications between hams and their local public
safety organizations. Perhaps if this mode becomes more prevalent
the ham radio manufacturers will consider including such an option on
future gear. Then, low and behold, hams in Canada would have
perfectly legal rigs that allow P25 comms on vhf/uhf, for example,
AND... since a lot of that gear has expanded receive capabilities....
--- In scanont@yahoogroups.com, "dave_scan1 <dharris@p...>"
<dharris@p...> wrote:
> How about a cheap crystal-controlled amateur-band-only RX that
> just happens to interface with the Uniden digital card...no
> restriction against listenening to amateurs experimenting
> with coded voice, provided they are operating within the
> rules.
>
> Dave
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:30:21 -0500
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
Subject: Re: Re: pocsag decoding help??
164.820 is very interesting to watch.
It's the frequency that Metro EMS uses here in Toronto to dispatch out all their calls.
Look for capcode 1311666. Every interesting call in Toronto goes to this pager.
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:32:43 -0500
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
Subject: Re: Re: Radar Detecters
Interesting to note..
I was pulled over last summer near London by an OPP. He demanded I give him my radar detector. Obviously, I was like "WTF?" Anyway, it turns out my ham rig (RadioShack HTX242) emitted an IF frequency that triggered their detector detector.
It took a lot of talking and demonstrating, but he let me on my way.
Which begs the question...if I had that AND the detector, then proved to him the radio set it off.... :)
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:36 -0500
From: rsh@idirect.com
Subject: Division 32 talk group...
I cannot recall when, but recently there was a discussion and it was stated
that the TPS use Division 31 and Division 33 talk groups, with Division 32
included in the Division 33 group... or so my memory believes...
Anyway, yesterday I observed that Division 32 talk group was used all day...
so it is being used. Not certain why, however, since most days it is only
Division 31 and Division 33...
For what its worth...
RSH
R.S. (Bob) Heuman - Toronto, ON, Canada
===================================================
<rsh@idirect.com> or <rheuman@rogers.com>
Copyright retained.
My opinions - no one elses...
If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:55 -0500
From: Zach Samson <phillyflyers50@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Radar Detecters
Do all radar detectors emit an IF frequency?
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Iszak
To: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Scanont] Re: Radar Detecters
Interesting to note..
I was pulled over last summer near London by an OPP. He demanded I give him my radar detector. Obviously, I was like "WTF?" Anyway, it turns out my ham rig (RadioShack HTX242) emitted an IF frequency that triggered their detector detector.
It took a lot of talking and demonstrating, but he let me on my way.
Which begs the question...if I had that AND the detector, then proved to him the radio set it off.... :)
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Looking for trunked radio information?
Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:01:05 -0500
From: "Michael Fenech" <mfenech@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Division 32 talk group...
31 is always on it's own talkgroup. 32/33 are almost always patched
together and dispatched by the same desk. They will appear on either 32 or
33 division talkgroup depending on which group was selected first when the
patch was created (that's the way I understand it).
--
Michael Fenech
Toronto, Ontario
----- Original Message -----
From: <rsh@idirect.com>
To: <scanont@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:54 PM
Subject: [Scanont] Division 32 talk group...
> I cannot recall when, but recently there was a discussion and it was
stated
> that the TPS use Division 31 and Division 33 talk groups, with Division 32
> included in the Division 33 group... or so my memory believes...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:59:38 -0500
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
Subject: Re: Division 32 talk group...
Division 32 and 33 are patched together.
Listening to either talkgroup will let you hear traffic on both of them.
IE, you can program in either 4464 or 4480 (32 and 33 Division) and you'll hear both division's traffic.
Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:50:17 -0500
From: "Steve St. Denis" <steve.st@sympatico.ca>
Subject: 410.8625 ??
I just started to listen to 410.8625 and found out it is the OPP, I hear both sides of the conversations , dispatch from Orillia and the OPP cruisers, can someone tell me what frequency this is, it's nice to hear police again since the Niagara Regional Police have gone digital. Is there any other frequencies I can hear the OPP on that are not digital ?? I'm in Fort Erie.
Steve
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:53:30 -0500
From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: 410.8625 ??
Steve,
The sim frequencies for both UHF and VHF are on Trunkedradio.net in the 782d
system information section.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:12:43 -0500
From: "Champ" <Champ@scanneraudio.com>
Subject: RE: 410.8625 ??
Conventional Frequencies associated with system
148.7650 OPP Sim11 - Replacement for Sim1 where the new system has been
implemented.
412.8875 OPP Mobile repeater.(analog).
410.8625 OPP (123.0hz) Mobile repeater frequency (analog).
411.3125 OPP (107.2hz) Mobile repeater frequency (analog).
411.5125 OPP Possible mobile repeater frequency.
142.7700 OPP OPC Common.
413.5375 OPP BEAT Repeater (analog) (in use in towns where the OPP do
beat patrols).
410.4125 OPP URBAN Repeater (Orillia - analog)
150.1000 MOH Provincial Common (analog).
149.6650 OPP GTA East Media Access Channel (analog).
143.5350 OPP GTA West Media Access Channel (analog).
140.9550 OPP Niagara Media Access Channel (analog).
411.6875 MTO (218.1hz) Mobile repeater frequency for MTO Enforcement
Vehicles (analog).
143.8050 MTO (114.8hz) Simplex (analog)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 12:28:42 EDT