[Scan-DC] D.C. Fire/EMS: Planning for ENCRYPTION !!!

[Clegg, Andrew W.]

Thanks for the links to the licensing pools, but without looking through reams of documents, I can't see any information on whether a receive-only device such as a scanner that is not attached to an LTE network is capable of receiving and decoding LTE signals off-the-air. I don't think that's possible, but I would be very interested to see the contrary, as that would hold out hope for future scanner enthusiasts. If you know of some reliable information on this topic, please let us know.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Krauss [mailto:jeff at krauss.ws] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Clegg, Andrew W.
Cc: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] D.C. Fire/EMS: Planning for ENCRYPTION !!!

But see:
http://www.vialicensing.com/lte/index.aspx
http://www.sisvel.com/index.php/lte



At 09:42 AM 11/19/2013, Clegg, Andrew W. wrote:
>Licensing LTE for receive-only scanners is extremely unlikely (if 
>not impossible) in my opinion. I'm not sure if it's possible if 
>there isn't a two-way connection between the receiver and the 
>transmitter (for authentication) as there is when a handset is 
>attached to the system. In any event, scanner licensing was never 
>done, or was not even possible, for other cellphone-like 
>technologies, such as iDEN, which was widely used in the south for 
>public safety traffic (Georgia State Police, for example).
>
>Anyway, my bet is that it is either not possible (most likely), or 
>not probable, for LTE technology to be licensed for scanners.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Krauss [mailto:jeff at krauss.ws]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:32 AM
>To: Clegg, Andrew W.; Lee Williams; Dewey3; Jonathan Binstock
>Cc: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net; Alan Henney
>Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] D.C. Fire/EMS: Planning for ENCRYPTION !!!
>
>While LTE links are encrypted, clearly the receivers (which are
>consumer products--namely, cell phones) have decryption capabilities.
>As consumer products, they are already prime candidates for
>hacking.  Do a Google search on "hacking LTE."
>But even disregarding such illegal actions, it seems likely that LTE
>technology will be available for licensing by scanner manufacturers,
>and that the public safety flavor of LTE would allow the system
>operator to decide which channels or talk groups are able to be
>decrypted by scanners.
>
>
>At 08:40 AM 11/19/2013, Clegg, Andrew W. wrote:
> >Future generations of public safety networks will very possibly use
> >LTE, which is an IP-based cellphone and mobile-broadband technology
> >that is effectively encrypted, with no capability to be monitored by
> >receivers that are not integrated into the network. So public safety
> >will no longer have to choose whether to go encrypted or not.
> >
> >______________________________________________________________
> >Scan-DC mailing list
> >Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
> >
> >This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Scan-DC mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html