Hello all,
First posting on here, does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of
the program WinMDT that used to be available here on the net a few
years back, and how well it worked compared to something like MDTMON.
Also, if anyone would happen to know of any sites that have info on
MDT frequencies that could be monitored. LCblanton's website used to
have the info up on it, but he apparently thinks he's a scannergod and
too good to reply to emails regarding this subject.

both winmdt and mdtmon were written for a type of MDT that has
( for the most part ) been abandoned commercially now.
modern MDT runs at much higher baud rate and with totally
different protocols than those programs were written for.
much of it either encrypted or run on digital trunking
repeaters. THAT is the major reason that you haven't seen anything
posted about them ( in the USA ) in several years.
there are always ( it seems ) a few people that chime in and
" claim " their local metro area is still using the older / slower
protocols , but for the vast majority of hobbyist ... MDT is
LONG past monitoring. unless you are absolutely sure your local
MDT is old / slow mdc-4800 , forget about it. ( both those programs
only decode mdc-4800 and do not work with the newer RD-Lap
9600 - 19,200 baud signals ..all of which have newer and different
encoding / decoding protocol. )

alternative possibilities include some of the rd-lap-9600 mobile
units seen , occasionally , for sale on ebay .... and the rare MDT
field testing terminal equipment also seen on ebay. in either case
there are MANY different types of signals that people lump into the
MDT realm , these days ... many of them no here near being the
MDT that people generally think of. most of the above is long shots
at best and not likely to be what you have in your area. modifying
and using the above mentioned equipment requires " profound "
knowledge and equipment to be successful.


one of the best sites for current MDT interests is

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...539/INDEX1.HTM

middle , center of the page. experience says these programs aren't
going to help you much ( esp if you live in USA / Canada ) but it's
something to work with.

remember that if you live in the USA , eavesdropping on MDT signals is
breaking Federal laws .

have phun .....
krackula ....



BTW: MDT freqs are VERY dependent on local applications and equipment
..they can vary from 150 mhz police to 900 mhz digital repeaters.
there are NO standardized freqs or encoding methodologies for "
in-car " mobile data terminals . in my metro area , alone , they
are located on 150 mhz, 460 mhz , 850 mhz and 900 mhz bands.
( CHiPs , and 3 different local PDs ... all on different freqs and
using different protocols )


http://www.wpascanner.com/addons.htm
http://www.decodesystems.com/projects.html#mdt
http://www.trunkedradio.net/digital/download_old.htm
http://hamradio.lakki.iki.fi/new/Software/Decoding/
http://www.members.accessus.net/~090/awh/freqs.html




On 5 Nov 2003 07:44:40 -0800, (Ben Dover)
wrote:

Hello all,
First posting on here, does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of
the program WinMDT that used to be available here on the net a few
years back, and how well it worked compared to something like MDTMON.
Also, if anyone would happen to know of any sites that have info on
MDT frequencies that could be monitored. LCblanton's website used to
have the info up on it, but he apparently thinks he's a scannergod and
too good to reply to emails regarding this subject.

krackula ...

^ remember that if you live in the USA , eavesdropping
^ on MDT signals is breaking Federal laws .

Which laws?

Frank

I think you will find that the real problem is Motorola, they will claim
patent infringement. My casual search of the regs found nothing that
prohibits the reception of the signal in the US.

"Frank" wrote in message
news:01c3a3f2$d8f6c550$0125250a@wjktnkcvozuwdken.. .
krackula ...

^ remember that if you live in the USA , eavesdropping
^ on MDT signals is breaking Federal laws .

Which laws?

Frank

ever since 1997 ( or maybe 1998 ) ..the same EPCA pack of rules
that slammed scanner makers ( remember the Newt Gingrich
debacle ? ) , USA web sites that offered ( some types ) of free
decoding software ( it why you don't see any USA sites like those
anymore ) , and custom types of intercept devices ( remember those
signal snarfer boxes that used to be sold on the web ? )
etc. ..... the congress / FCC has made it illegal to eavesdrop /
intercept ANY signals that have been encoded , encrypted or
otherwise radiated with the expectation of privacy of the signal.
these same laws also made it illegal to listen in on cordless
phones, cellfones, pagers , mobitex signals etc. if you listen in
AT ALL and esp. USE or repeat the information to anyone and get
caught ( ala Newt ) it is a federal offense , now.
Only " in the clear " signals ( yes APCO25 is considered in the
clear ) are legal to be listened to ..signals where the originator
had NO expectation of privacy when they transmitted them.
it's still illegal to use or repeat the " in the clear " signal info
in many instances ...but not just to listen .
it's why no new software has shown up to decode the newer signal
types ... because of possible federal charges that could result .
about anyone could eavesdrop on analog cellfones or 4 level flex
pagers .. but doing so , in the USA , is a federal crime ..now. (
this includes MDT ..especially MDT ..because police use it for secure
comms and expect it to be private )



Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, § 2701



" ...Electronic Communications Privacy Act
("ECPA") (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522, 2701-2709, 3121-3126)
ECPA added electronic communications to the federal wiretapping act.
ECPA applies to R.F. communications privacy because it makes it
illegal to knowingly intercept, use and / or disclose electronic
communications that are in transit or while they are in storage. ..."

the EPCA started back in the mid 1980s and has been upgraded many
times. you can type EPCA into Google if you want to dig through all
the regs..

even the authorities can't eavesdrop either ... the laws apply to
them , also.

check it out .....


krackula .........









On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:16:38 -0000, "Frank"
wrote:

krackula ...

^ remember that if you live in the USA , eavesdropping
^ on MDT signals is breaking Federal laws .

Which laws?

Frank

krackula ...

^ ... and custom types of intercept devices ...

Radio frequencies are not intercepted, they are received.


^ the congress / FCC has made it illegal to eavesdrop /

Bull.

^ intercept

Bull.


^ ANY signals that have been encoded ,

Bull.


^ encrypted

It is a violation to decrypt encrypted signals.


^ or otherwise radiated with the expectation

Bull.

^ of privacy of the signal.

Bull. There is no privacy with radio and there never has been any expectation
of it.


You are obviously trying to mislead people.

Frank

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the Net??





it's got nothing to do with me personally .... ( I don't give a
rats a$% about it ) but I do have to sit in monthly meetings (
at work ) and listen to all this " rules and regulations " crap ....
which no one pays any attention to anyway. ( in the government ...
unless it suits them )

what I'm quoting is the current Federal interpretation of things ...
( seems to change monthly ) .... doesn't matter what you , or I,
or anyone else thinks it should be or is ( in reality ) it ONLY
matters what THEY think it means. they don't give a crap about
your or mine views about it. ( which you'll find out if you end up
with them in your face ) get over it ........ it's all just
political junk . ( when was the last time you ever heard of someone
getting busted for listening to cellfones or monitoring pagers ?
the " scanner police " are NOT going to come and bust down your
door while you are listening to cellular conversations , even if
it IS illegal !!! )

you probably voted the sapsuckers in there ... so it's YOUR fault
things got this way in the first place. ( thanks to your buddy
Newt ) h ah aha ha ha ahhaaa a



k..................

of course not ... as a matter of fact I , personally , used to
really like monitoring MDT and pagers , just to mention a few (
ricochet , mobitex .etc ) ....back when you could monitor those
.... and I liked keeping an eye on government which ( I believe )
should have civilian oversight. " keeping an eye on the boys helps
keep us in line. "
I kinda liked the way you could run the software ( and a scanner
) and go away and come back later and see what was happening.
used to see some pretty interesting stuff ..from time to time....
never thought anything was wrong with it , back when.

BUT ..... times and circumstances have changed. now the theme
( they harp on and on and on ) is terrorism and homeland security.
lots of government types like to believe that access to MDT ,
cellular , certain types of pagers etc ..are potential threats to
national security ... that the only people that would want access
to those types of signals are the " bad guys " or terrorists. that
average citizens understand that the " national good " out weighs
their own personal interests , in times like this. ( sound kinda nazi
to you ? does to me !! ) we all know that this is probably a lota
bull larkey ...but ...oh well ..........

phreaking / carding ( untraceable free calls ) , cellular phone
hacking , police / mdt eavesdropping , computer viruses etc ..are
NOW seen as activities that only criminal types or terrorists would
want to do ... ALL potentially damaging to national security. I
don't necessarily agree with it all myself ( at least not to the
degree of potential danger that " some " people seem to see
the sky is falling , the sky is falling , ie" cl " ) but no one
asks for my input on these subjects ... just " this is the way it is
, go deal with it " ...." .... oh well ... times sure have
changed.

thats progress for you ...... ha ha aaahahahahaa

k.......




On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:34:01 GMT, krackula wrote:



Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the Net??





it's got nothing to do with me personally .... ( I don't give a
rats a$% about it ) but I do have to sit in monthly meetings (
at work ) and listen to all this " rules and regulations " crap ....
which no one pays any attention to anyway. ( in the government ...
unless it suits them )

what I'm quoting is the current Federal interpretation of things ...
( seems to change monthly ) .... doesn't matter what you , or I,
or anyone else thinks it should be or is ( in reality ) it ONLY
matters what THEY think it means. they don't give a crap about
your or mine views about it. ( which you'll find out if you end up
with them in your face ) get over it ........ it's all just
political junk . ( when was the last time you ever heard of someone
getting busted for listening to cellfones or monitoring pagers ?
the " scanner police " are NOT going to come and bust down your
door while you are listening to cellular conversations , even if
it IS illegal !!! )

you probably voted the sapsuckers in there ... so it's YOUR fault
things got this way in the first place. ( thanks to your buddy
Newt ) h ah aha ha ha ahhaaa a



k..................

Woolridge ...

^ damn. you got some balls :P

Well, I'm not a bull.

In my haste I forgot to comment on encoding versus encrypting transmissions.
Digital voice is an encoded signal so by his fictitious law we would not be
able to receive it legally. Encoding is nothing more than formatting digital
information so that it can be transmitted. All digital data is encoded.
Encryption would be applied to the data before it is encoded, so the
transmission must be decoded in order to find out if it is encrypted.

Anything that any of our federal, state, or local governmental agencies
transmit is public information. If a federal employee talks to his or her
spouse on an office phone it is not private and never has been. Government
phones, as far as I'm aware, have always been subject to monitoring by the
government.

Frank

you'd make a great lawyer :P

"Frank" wrote in message
news:01c3a4bd$756df320$0125250a@nwfepqxhdbaxbrno.. .
Woolridge ...

^ damn. you got some balls :P

Well, I'm not a bull.

In my haste I forgot to comment on encoding versus encrypting
transmissions.
Digital voice is an encoded signal so by his fictitious law we would not
be
able to receive it legally. Encoding is nothing more than formatting
digital
information so that it can be transmitted. All digital data is encoded.
Encryption would be applied to the data before it is encoded, so the
transmission must be decoded in order to find out if it is encrypted.

Anything that any of our federal, state, or local governmental agencies
transmit is public information. If a federal employee talks to his or her
spouse on an office phone it is not private and never has been. Government
phones, as far as I'm aware, have always been subject to monitoring by the
government.

Frank