[TrunkCom] another possibility

[Todd Hartzel]

Greetings all,
       I'm about to pose another idea on the subject of mis-behaved
talkgroups in a Type II designated Block.  Here goes:

While I was showering just now (getting ready for work), it occured
to be that about 2 1/2 years ago, before I started working down at
Tucker (12th street) & Clark in downtown St Louis, I was working
near Arsenal & S Broadway in the Soulard Industrial area.

While I was there, I did some extensive monitoring of the America's
Center TRS, just shortly after they changed it over from Type I to
Type II.  Now, here is the 'Bomb-Shell' or 'Opening of the Can of
Worms':

I remember monitoring conversations that were using Differant IDs
for each user that was speaking ; that was apart of the main
conversation.  These user radios would have a differing ID of
just a few digits or so.  Example:

- 57467
- 57458
- 57454
etc...   You get the picture.......

Now, the first thing I did (knowing its Type II Block #7) is enable
the 'Status-Bit' function of my 245xlt.  Thinking, oh, that would
quickly resolve the problem.

Nope......

The users involved in the conversations were still not showing up
on the same talkgroup.  This stunned me into assuming...

ONLY one other possible alternative...

They are Type I users.  But how can that be, being right in the
middle of a known Type II block.  Even as those comms were 
going on, other users in Block #7 were on their correct Type II
talkgroups.  Nothing weird was happening with those other
users talking.  So....  Here it is.......

Now, before I 'Rip the Rug from Underneath You', try to keep an
open mind on this:

- Is it possible, for Type I users (Type I talkgroups) to co-exist
in the very same block that has been designated:  TYPE II ????

(please re-read the question again.  
Please don't misunderstand it)

I know it sounds incredable, even weird.  But is it possible?  
Ok, let's think about it.  I remember a rumor that came
out about the same time as America's Center switched from
Type I to Type II, that stated Motorola was working on trying to
confuse TrunkTracker scanners.  Think about it.  Is this Motorola's
bad attempt (failed attempt) to confuse TrunkTrackers?

Everyting listed above on the  talkgroups is true.  I welcome
anyone that would like to verify it.  Try it.........



73 from todd hartzel / n0vkg
http://www.icon-stl.net/~toddh