POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
jay mather
Anyone know what they are?
an65...@anon.penet.fi
Perhaps it is because you are a child.
Perhaps it is because you are a criminal.
Perhaps it's because you are a caring citizen who is going to rush off and
help when they run into trouble.
My guess is that it's the first.
Chris Dennis
>In article <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> as...@ihug.co.nz (jay mather) wrote:
>>POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
>>
>>Anyone know what they are?
The Police know - why not ask them?
>>
>Just out of curiosity why would you want to listen to the police?
>Perhaps it is because you are a child.
>Perhaps it is because you are a criminal.
>Perhaps it's because you are a caring citizen who is going to rush off and
>help when they run into trouble.
>My guess is that it's the first.
At least the original poster was willing to sign their message with a real
email address.
--
Chris Dennis chris....@actrix.gen.nz
Wellington, Aotearoa phone: +64-4-382 8620
Aaron Hart
>In article <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> as...@ihug.co.nz (jay mather) wrote:
>>POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
>>
>>Anyone know what they are?
>>
>Just out of curiosity why would you want to listen to the police?
>Perhaps it is because you are a child.
>Perhaps it is because you are a criminal.
>Perhaps it's because you are a caring citizen who is going to rush off and
>help when they run into trouble.
>My guess is that it's the first.
Well I also listen to them it is a good way to find out what roads have
got accidents on so you can avoid them.
--
+--------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| Aaron Hart | Horowhenua Email & News | traH noraA |
| 4 Cousins Ave East | Connections | tsaE evA snisuoC 4 |
| Foxton Beach | | hcaeB notxoF |
| New Zealand | Mobile 025-512-685 | dnalaeZ weN |
| 025-512-685 | | 586-215-520 |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
Douglas J Coutts
> aa...@horowhenua.gen.nz (Aaron Hart) wrote in article
<0630961142...@horowhenua.gen.nz>...
> an65...@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
> >In article <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> > as...@ihug.co.nz (jay mather) wrote:
> >>POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
> >>
> >>Anyone know what they are?
> >>
> >Just out of curiosity why would you want to listen to the police?
> >Perhaps it is because you are a child.
> >Perhaps it is because you are a criminal.
> >Perhaps it's because you are a caring citizen who is going to rush off
and
> >help when they run into trouble.
> >My guess is that it's the first.
>
> Well I also listen to them it is a good way to find out what roads have
> got accidents on so you can avoid them.
> --
Well done - a good answer. The cheque is in the mail.
--
__________________________
Douglas J Coutts
Writing done
I never met a deadline I didn't like
Frank Pitt
If you want to try and remain anonymous while flaming someone,
you're going to have to do a lot better than this :
>Path:!waikato!news.express.co.nz!chch.planet.co.nz!news.plain.co.nz!ppp64123
>From: an65...@anon.penet.fi
>Newsgroups: nz.general
>Subject: Re: POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
>Date: 28 Jun 1996 23:30:55 GMT
>Organization: lacking
>Lines: 12
>Message-ID: <4r1pvf$i...@sirius.plain.co.nz>
>References: <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp64123.chch.planet.org.nz
BTW, I suggest the original poster ask at Dick Smiths.
:-)
Frankie
fra...@pec.co.nz
In <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, as...@ihug.co.nz (jay mather) writes:
>POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
>
>Anyone know what they are?
They're sections of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for Police
use, but that's not important right now.
--
Frank van der Hulst | Signature reception incomplete....
Software Engineer (Cardax) | _
PEC (NZ) Ltd | Click here [_] to retry
Marton, New Zealand. |
fra...@pec.co.nz | http://www.pec.co.nz/~frankv/
Steven Biddle
In article <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
It depends where you actually are, but between 75 and 77mhz FM for the
car frequencies and 485 and 488mhz FM for for portable frequencies.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
| =+ Steven Biddle += Mail: avi...@actrix.gen.nz |
| Welington, New Zealand. BIDD...@ix.wcc.govt.nz |
-------------------------------------------------------
John R. Oliver
an65...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>
> In article <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> as...@ihug.co.nz (jay mather) wrote:
> >POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
> >
> >Anyone know what they are?
> >
> Perhaps it is because you are a child.
> Perhaps it is because you are a criminal.
> Perhaps it's because you are a caring citizen who is going to rush off and
> help when they run into trouble.
> My guess is that it's the first.
What the fuck is it you anyway? Who the hell are you? The Thought
Police?
An anonymous flamer. What a contemptable loser.
Thomas Beagle
Aaron Hart <aa...@horowhenua.gen.nz> wrote:
>Well I also listen to them it is a good way to find out what roads have
>got accidents on so you can avoid them.
Based on my understanding this is illegal.
When I was doing a little scanning I looked into the law and seem to
recall that it said you could listen - but not act on or communicate
the information you heard. Choosing a different route would surely be
acting on the overheard information...
ObStory: I used to listen to the scanner for something to do while
walking my beagle at night. One time I was listening and the police
got reports of someone walking around the suburb I was in carrying a
rifle!
Putting two and two together, I realised that someone had seen me and
had mistaken the radio aerial for the barrel of a gun! I had the fun
of listening to the radio conversations of about four or five police
people looking for me (until they finally spotted me and we had a bit
of a laugh about it). I think their verdict was "Harmless". (Not even
"mostly harmless".)
--
Thomas Beagle
tho...@geac.co.nz
Scooter Dowle
tho...@geac.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>Aaron Hart <aa...@horowhenua.gen.nz> wrote:
>>Well I also listen to them it is a good way to find out what roads have
>>got accidents on so you can avoid them.
>
>Based on my understanding this is illegal.
>
>When I was doing a little scanning I looked into the law and seem to
>recall that it said you could listen - but not act on or communicate
>the information you heard. Choosing a different route would surely be
>acting on the overheard information...
You interpret the law a trifle narrowly, it is illegal to PROFIT from any
information you hear on them, such as tow truck operators.
--
Eschew obfuscation.
ЪДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДВДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДї
і Scooter Dowle і sco...@dowle.uu.gen.nz і
і PO Box 4127 і gr...@taranaki.ac.nz і
і New Plymouth 4630 N.Z. і FidoNet 3:775/90 і
АДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДБДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДЩ
Don Stokes
In article <0701961945...@dowle.uu.gen.nz>,
Scooter Dowle <sco...@dowle.uu.gen.nz> wrote:
>tho...@geac.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>>Based on my understanding this is illegal.
>>
>>When I was doing a little scanning I looked into the law and seem to
>>recall that it said you could listen - but not act on or communicate
>>the information you heard. Choosing a different route would surely be
>>acting on the overheard information...
>You interpret the law a trifle narrowly, it is illegal to PROFIT from any
>information you hear on them, such as tow truck operators.
No, Thomas has it right (technically at least -- in practice I doubt that
anyone would enforce the rules in the case of listening to avoid
accidents).
I can't find my copy of the Radio Regulations to quote chapter and verse,
but it's fairly explicit that if you receive _any_ (not just police etc)
transmission not intended for you, you must not act on it nor communicate
it to any other person. Pecuniary gain is not mentioned. I don't
believe there are any frequencies to which listening into is illegal.
--
Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
d...@vuw.ac.nz(work) d...@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386
Thomas Beagle
Scooter Dowle <sco...@dowle.uu.gen.nz> wrote:
>tho...@geac.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>>When I was doing a little scanning I looked into the law and seem to
>>recall that it said you could listen - but not act on or communicate
>>the information you heard. Choosing a different route would surely be
>>acting on the overheard information...
>You interpret the law a trifle narrowly, it is illegal to PROFIT from any
>information you hear on them, such as tow truck operators.
Profit can be interpreted fairly widely. Saving time could be
considered to be profitting.
Damn, I wish I had my old copy of the legislation still so I could
check what it actually says.
>--
>Eschew obfuscation.
I tried, but it wouldn't go down and I had to spit it out.
--
Thomas Beagle
tho...@geac.co.nz
Douglas J Coutts
> tho...@geac.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) wrote in article
<4r7a4k$16...@ferrari.geac.co.nz>...
>
> ObStory: I used to listen to the scanner for something to do while
> walking my beagle at night. One time I was listening and the police
> got reports of someone walking around the suburb I was in carrying a
> rifle!
>
> Putting two and two together, I realised that someone had seen me and
> had mistaken the radio aerial for the barrel of a gun! I had the fun
> of listening to the radio conversations of about four or five police
> people looking for me (until they finally spotted me and we had a bit
> of a laugh about it). I think their verdict was "Harmless". (Not even
> "mostly harmless".)
Wot a larf. Imagine if they'd shot at you... chortle chortle.
Get rid of the beagle - it's obviously a liability. (A lot have people
have said that.)
Ross Keatinge
d...@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) wrote:
>I can't find my copy of the Radio Regulations to quote chapter and verse,
>but it's fairly explicit that if you receive _any_ (not just police etc)
>transmission not intended for you, you must not act on it nor communicate
>it to any other person. Pecuniary gain is not mentioned. I don't
>believe there are any frequencies to which listening into is illegal.
Yes, that agrees with my memory of studying for my ham exam many moons
ago.
Something that occurs to me is that this law makes using a radar
detector illegal. You can have it switched on, listen to the warning
but you are not allowed to slow down to avoid a speeding ticket.
I remember reading an English electronics magazine years ago
describing how to build a metal detector. Believe it or not, to use
it in the UK you needed to have a pipe finders licence which you got
by spending three pounds or so at the post office :-)
--
Ross Keatinge ro...@iprolink.co.nz
Auckland, New Zealand
Bruce Hoult
d...@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) writes:
> I can't find my copy of the Radio Regulations to quote chapter and verse,
> but it's fairly explicit that if you receive _any_ (not just police etc)
> transmission not intended for you, you must not act on it nor communicate
> it to any other person. Pecuniary gain is not mentioned. I don't
> believe there are any frequencies to which listening into is illegal.
Is police RADAR "intended for you"?
-- Bruce
Scooter Dowle
tho...@geac.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>
>>You interpret the law a trifle narrowly, it is illegal to PROFIT from any
>>information you hear on them, such as tow truck operators.
>
>Profit can be interpreted fairly widely. Saving time could be
>considered to be profitting.
route because of a traffic accident to be "profitting".
It would probably be appreciated by the police, fire and ambulance crew
because it will be one less car to crawl slowly pst the scene of the
accident, thus freeing up a pointsman for other duties.
>Damn, I wish I had my old copy of the legislation still so I could
>check what it actually says.
Why would I want to put you crook?
>>-- >>Eschew obfuscation.
>
>I tried, but it wouldn't go down and I had to spit it out.
Bruce Hoult
ro...@iprolink.co.nz (Ross Keatinge) writes:
> Something that occurs to me is that this law makes using a radar
> detector illegal. You can have it switched on, listen to the warning
> but you are not allowed to slow down to avoid a speeding ticket.
But surely it is intended for you, and thus you *can* act on it?
-- Bruce
Simon Quested
A friend of mine works at the place that they make the police radios and
he said that thay are digitaly coded and that they all have a
control code that disables the decoder if the car/radio gets stolen.
Dave Green
So does my car stereo :)
Dave
Ross Keatinge
Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) wrote:
Umm.... maybe, that's an interesting point.
But the signal is intended to be received by the microwave receiver in
the radar unit so.... therefore is it really intended for you?
Jeremy [Mej] Taylor
Simon Quested wrote:
>
> A friend of mine works at the place that they make the police radios and
> he said that thay are digitaly coded and that they all have a
> control code that disables the decoder if the car/radio gets stolen.
Police radios in NZ are not digital, and are not encrypted.
PS - what did that have to do with the subject at hand anyway?
--
Jeremy Taylor (jeremy...@tait.co.nz)
Mobile Radio Division, Tait Electronics Ltd
<insert disclaimer>
Frank Pitt
In article <31dad43...@news.iprolink.co.nz> ro...@iprolink.co.nz writes:
>
>Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) wrote:
>
>>ro...@iprolink.co.nz (Ross Keatinge) writes:
>>> Something that occurs to me is that this law makes using a radar
>>> detector illegal. You can have it switched on, listen to the warning
>>> but you are not allowed to slow down to avoid a speeding ticket.
>>
>>But surely it is intended for you, and thus you *can* act on it?
>
>Umm.... maybe, that's an interesting point.
>
>But the signal is intended to be received by the microwave receiver in
>the radar unit
In which case why is it aimed at your car ?
It could be argued that the police are illegally recieving and acting on
a radar message from your car.
In turn, it could be argued that you were illegally rebroadcasting the
radar signal.
Therefore the _only_ way to remain illegal under the act would be to
have radar absorbent panels on your car.
Of course it would be much simpler to outlaw the directional broadcast of
dangerous ionising weapons at passing vehicles, like any sane society would.
Frankie
Mark Glassborow
> Therefore the _only_ way to remain illegal under the act would be to
> have radar absorbent panels on your car.
>
With the cold war now over, suppliers to the military are now looking for other customers.
I read somewhere that in the States you can now buy radar jammers for your car.
Andy Gardner
Frank Pitt <fra...@mundens.southern.co.nz> wrote:
> Of course it would be much simpler to outlaw the directional broadcast of
> dangerous ionising weapons at passing vehicles, like any sane society would.
A large number of snakes leave their Hawk radar switched on at all
times. How much power do these things put out? If I'm sitting at traffic
lights and there's a snake pulled-up right behind me, what sort of
radiation field is my brain being subjected to?
Are my testicles safe? Should I file an action against the police when I
find out I'm sterile?
On another tack, what sort of field strengths are being produced
_inside_ the police car? Do lots of snakes get brain tumours?
--
Andy Gardner
Wellington, New Zealand
"Speed limit? What speed limit?"
Don Stokes
Frank Pitt <fra...@mundens.equinox.gen.nz> wrote:
>>>ro...@iprolink.co.nz (Ross Keatinge) writes:
>>>> Something that occurs to me is that this law makes using a radar
>>>> detector illegal. You can have it switched on, listen to the warning
>>>> but you are not allowed to slow down to avoid a speeding ticket.
I still can't find my copy of the Radio Regulations, but I _think_ the
regs refer to _information_ content transmitted by radio, rather than
the mere presence or nature of a signal.
>Of course it would be much simpler to outlaw the directional broadcast of
>dangerous ionising weapons at passing vehicles, like any sane society would.
I believe it already is illegal. But you won't find that in the Radio
Regulations since radio frequency energy (right through microwave and and
well into UV range) is non-ionizing. Sorry, but you can't get off your
speeding ticket that way... 8-)
Peter Gutmann
andy.g...@ibm.net (Andy Gardner) writes:
>Are my testicles safe? Should I file an action against the police when I
>find out I'm sterile?
>On another tack, what sort of field strengths are being produced
>_inside_ the police car? Do lots of snakes get brain tumours?
There have been a number of lawsuits in the US by police officers who rested
radar guns on their laps (which is about the most covenient place to put the
handheld ones) and got testicular cancer, so yes, they can be dangerous. For
passing cars the exposure is too brief and the field too low to be of any
concern.
Peter.
Brian Dooley
In article <4rkko7$8...@totara.its.vuw.ac.nz>,
d...@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) wrote:
> I still can't find my copy of the Radio Regulations, but I _think_ the
> regs refer to _information_ content transmitted by radio, rather than
> the mere presence or nature of a signal.
I've just found mine. Unfortunately they are dated 1953.
However they specifically refer to "correspondence or
communication", and the prohibition refers to actual
publication or passing on to a third party. Even disclosure
of the existence of such information is prohibited.
Still, a lot of soap has gone under the old wedding ring
since then and maybe things have changed.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
John Mee
Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
> There have been a number of lawsuits in the US by police officers who rested
> radar guns on their laps (which is about the most covenient place to put the
> handheld ones) and got testicular cancer, so yes, they can be dangerous.
But weren't these for the older guns (i.e. > 10 years)?
Alf West
In his inimitable, almost coherent fashion, John R. Oliver uttered:
>What the fuck is it you anyway? Who the hell are you? The Thought
>Police?
The man likes to make a comment, regardless of how embarrassing it
appears to others. Nuff said.
Don Mackie
In article <4rkpk7$8...@net.auckland.ac.nz>, pgu...@cs.auckland.ac.nz
(Peter Gutmann) wrote:
> There have been a number of lawsuits in the US by police officers who rested
> radar guns on their laps (which is about the most covenient place to put the
> handheld ones) and got testicular cancer, so yes, they can be dangerous.
The fact that a number of suits have been brought does not confirm any
danger. In fact, given the way the US tort law system works, a successful
suit need not be taken as confirmation of the danger.
--
Don - at home.
Things get worse under pressure
(Murphy's law of thermodynamics)
Nathan Mercer
Hi
I haven't followed the start of this thread but ....
The Police channel 1 in Christchurch is 485.275 (or at least it was a few
months ago when I last used a scanner)
Cheers
Nathan
--
Nathan Mercer, Consultant
P O Box 3007, Christchurch, New Zealand 8015
GSM Mobile +64 21 352339 Fax +64 3 3799490
Work : n...@commarc.co.nz
Home : nat...@mcs.co.nz
Daniel Ayers
Jeremy [Mej] Taylor (jeremy...@tait.co.nz) wrote:
: Police radios in NZ are not digital, and are not encrypted.
Indeed not.
Nathan Mercer (nat...@mcs.co.nz) wrote:
: The Police channel 1 in Christchurch is 485.275
The NZ Police have a very good, and rather complex, radio communication
system. To the staff it appears that there are a small number of separate
channels - in Christchurch we have Channel 1 (calling & general), Channel 2
(file queries and longer chats), Channel 3 and Beat Channel (normally
linked together, used for longer chats) and the Rural Channel.
In terms of frequencies, there are VHF frequencies used by the in-car radios
and UHF frequencies used by the portables. The portables (at least, and
maybe the car radios too) support "voting" - ie. each channel is transmitted
on multiple frequencies and the radio will tune to the strongest.
All this means that for each channel (eg. ch 1) there are multiple VHF
frequencies for the car radios (eg. for ch 1 in chch; 75.7375, 75.7625,
75.7250) and multiple UHF frequencies for the portables (chch ch1; 485.2750,
487.3500).
Those four Christchurch channels use 26 frequencies in the VHF and UHF
bands (and perhaps there are more that I don't know about).
Daniel.
Toby Te Rupe
In article <1996070611...@slip202-135-20-1.sy.au.ibm.net>,
andy.g...@ibm.net (Andy Gardner) wrote:
> Frank Pitt <fra...@mundens.southern.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Of course it would be much simpler to outlaw the directional broadcast of
> > dangerous ionising weapons at passing vehicles, like any sane society would.
>
> A large number of snakes leave their Hawk radar switched on at all
> times. How much power do these things put out? If I'm sitting at traffic
> lights and there's a snake pulled-up right behind me, what sort of
> radiation field is my brain being subjected to?
>
> Are my testicles safe? Should I file an action against the police when I
> find out I'm sterile?
>
> On another tack, what sort of field strengths are being produced
> _inside_ the police car? Do lots of snakes get brain tumours?
'
Ask to go for a ride in one of their cars, its a 'public service' you
know, I went for a ride by just asking... Just telling your doing research
on : Something like "The effects of Hawk Radar's on the public's
testicles"
Or something in that nature.
jadedl...@gmail.com
jadedl...@gmail.com
peterwn
> It has always been legal to listen to the police frequencies, it's illegal to act on any information you hear, eg, you hear they're on their way to bust your mates grow room and you ring him and give him the heads up to clean up, FAST. But how they'd prove you acted on what you supposedly heard (they'd have to prove you were listening aswell) and hey if ur mates growing chances are he's listening to the scanner too. Stupid laws. Police state. And the dude who kept answering the same rubbish over and over thinking he's all that. I poke my tongue out to you sir, you are worth nothing more than a wet poke of the tongue. AnArChY rules
napieraut...@gmail.com
Anso Glickenburger
And the twat that answered right after I asked the question, what a miserable little sole you were!
On Friday, June 28, 1996 at 7:00:00 PM UTC+12, jay mather wrote:
> POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
> Anyone know what they are?
Anso Glickenburger
> In article <4r0984$m...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> >POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES
> >
> >Anyone know what they are?
> >
> Perhaps it is because you are a child.
> Perhaps it is because you are a criminal.
> Perhaps it's because you are a caring citizen who is going to rush off and
> help when they run into trouble.
> My guess is that it's the first.
