Ma/com Vs Motorola

[brey1234]

efforts to establish a emergency communication channel to improve safety and response time are being hindered by old-fashioned competition. The state is part of a larger battleground between two communication companies offering different versions of an 800-MHz system.
Motorola Inc. and M/A-Com compete to supply radio service to Oklahoma cities and private utilities. The difference in radio systems creates compatibility problems between the Motorola system used by Tulsa and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and the M/A-Com system used by Oklahoma City, Broken Arrow, Bixby, Glenpool and Jenks.
"Every state is a battleground. It's no secret," said Chuck Shaughnessy, vice president of operations for M/A-Com.
M/A-Com just won a $2 billion contract to install an 800-MHz system and VHF system in New York, Shaughnessy said.
Motorola, meanwhile, leads M/A-Com in installing state systems, said Steve Gorecki, a company spokesman. Gorecki said Motorola has built 29 of 32 systems across the nation
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060801_Ne_a1_state_0

 

[mofugger]

one sucks and one doesnt.

 

[Rayjk110]

They'll be back to Motorola once all that MA/Crap stuff fails again.

 

[bauker]

It's Ford vs. Chevy...

Both companies have "placed their bets" using varied technologies. Obviously, competition may save taxpayer dollars. Both will be around for a long time, and will take hits from other competitors too just like the automakers do.

 

[2112]

They'll be back to Motorola once all that MA/Crap stuff fails again.

What exactly about M/A-Com justifies its labeling as "MA/Crap"?

 

[WCRadioGuy]

What exactly about M/A-Com justifies its labeling as "MA/Crap"?

Nothing justifies it other than the jealousy over a better system. M/A-Com is more compatible, easier to upgrade and harder to monitor. That's why people don't like it.

 

[2112]

Nothing justifies it other than the jealousy over a better system. M/A-Com is more compatible, easier to upgrade and harder to monitor. That's why people don't like it.

That M/A-Com is better, more compatible, and easier to upgrade is pretty subjective. I do agree, though, that ProVoice being harder to monitor is what drives most of the unjustified hate for M/A-Com here. However, this too is somewhat subjective... Motorola VSELP-exclusive systems (like Cleveland's) also can't be monitored by any consumer scanners out there, but since they aren't anywhere near as prolific as ProVoice systems, you hardly ever hear a peep from the haters about how bad VSELP is.

There are number of lengthy threads in the Oklahoma state forum that shed light on the goodness of ProVoice systems (this is also subjective):

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44571
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28053
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38818
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37141
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37103
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28053
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33812

Those with all the hate for M/A-Com might be better off transforming the energy that otherwise goes into bashing ProVoice into something productive, like trying out the method described here:

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Digital_Voice_Conversion_Method

I haven't fooled with it yet, so I don't know yet if it works. If anyone has, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[jparks29]

nothing a DIU can't fix....

 

[AlanTilles]

I'm Always Amused......

... at these discussions of M/A-Com vs. Motorola, because I represent users of both, and I work with both manufacturers on a variety of issues (I don't represent either of them presently, although I used to represent the earlier owners of the Lynchburg group). Each camp is fully committed to "mine is best," and each group of users tries to convince the other of their superiority. At the end of the day, there needs to be some sort of interoperability between them, and the best solution will vary by location. Whether its merely the NPSPAC Mutual Aid channels, the Florida SLERS channels or more sophisticated gateways such as Network First (used in Denver), the bottom line is making sure that there is something to addresses the local need.

I know, most of the folks in this forum have scanning as their prime interest. That's just not my own focus.

 

[N_Jay]

... at these discussions of M/A-Com vs. Motorola, because I represent users of both, and I work with both manufacturers on a variety of issues (I don't represent either of them presently, although I used to represent the earlier owners of the Lynchburg group). Each camp is fully committed to "mine is best," and each group of users tries to convince the other of their superiority. At the end of the day, there needs to be some sort of interoperability between them, and the best solution will vary by location. Whether its merely the NPSPAC Mutual Aid channels, the Florida SLERS channels or more sophisticated gateways such as Network First (used in Denver), the bottom line is making sure that there is something to addresses the local need.

I know, most of the folks in this forum have scanning as their prime interest. That's just not my own focus.

Well put Alan!

 

[ElroyJetson]

I hope for the day when the federal government steps in and mandates that all public safety radio systems installed nationwide be FULLY compatible in ALL modes of operation, conventional AND trunked.

When that happens, whatever system is selected as the standard, both companies (and others) will be able to compete FAIRLY in the same markets to provide equipment and services, resulting in the wonderful thing known as FREE MARKET COMPETITION, which will drive prices down and quality up.

It will then be like the computer market: Even specialized computers like Suns, Macs, and SGIs are interoperable to a large degree with PCs, which in turn essentially rule the world.
And the way things are going, even those computers are becoming more and more intercompatible all the time. The day will come when everything is compatible.

This must happen in radio communications as well.

What I think will happen is that when radio communications are fully standardized, it will
be a format that is far more like wireless IP than trunking systems as we know them now.
Each radio will be truly part of a WAN, essentially.

I've used plenty of Motorola and Ma/Com radio equipment over the years. I've learned
a lot about all of it. I think Motorola makes a FAR superior radio unit these days, though
I have to say that if you go back quite a few years to the days of the GE Rangr and MPD
radios, which were made by Japan Radio Corporation, those particular models were
VERY fine and VERY rugged. They were the best executed radio designs I've ever seen
in many respects. JRC made some world class radios for GE. No GE (edacs) radio
that has been made that wasn't a JRC made unit has even come CLOSE to that level of
quality and construction.

I'm not very familiar with how ProVoice differs from regular EDACS, but it's certainly easier
to program EDACS than it is to program any Motorola trunking format. I can program
Astro data fairly well if I need to, but the software has never been as easy to work with
as the EDACS software.

I've never, ever had to sit there and manually fix literally DOZENS of data fields in the
EDACS sofware before the software would so much as allow me to save my codeplug,
but Astro software will definitely do that to you if you start deleting unused talkgroups
and forgot to remove their info from scan list entries, etc. It'll drive you nuts!

Motorola should have taken note of the EDACS software and learned from it.

As for which is actually a better trunking system, I can't give you a truly well informed
opinion on that from a technical perspective, but it seems to me that both companies now
offer a reliable solution that gets the job done IF the system is properly designed with
enough sites in the right spots. Coverage is EVERYTHING. Without it, the best technical
system is GARBAGE..

 

[N_Jay]

I hope for the day when the federal government steps in and mandates that all public safety radio systems installed nationwide be FULLY compatible in ALL modes of operation, conventional AND trunked.

When that happens, whatever system is selected as the standard, both companies (and others) will be able to compete FAIRLY in the same markets to provide equipment and services, resulting in the wonderful thing known as FREE MARKET COMPETITION, which will drive prices down and quality up.

And all innovation will cease.

Your comparison to the PC market is not accurate.

There are PLENTY of incompatibilities in the computer market.

 

[n4voxgill]

I hope for the day when the federal government steps in and mandates that all public safety radio systems installed nationwide be FULLY compatible in ALL modes of operation, conventional AND trunked...

that would certainly get rid of all those little volunteer fire departments that can't afford to put in trunked radio systems to be compatible with the big boys.

 

[ElroyJetson]

There will always be a need for conventional operations for agencies that don't have need trunking due to low usage. If the government standardizes formats, they will include conventional provisions.

I believe that standardization would not necessarily be the end of innovation, either. Companies would be encouraged to develop system enhancements but those enhancements would then be evaluated by the relevant government agency and those that are found to be the best developments would be incorporated into the next upgrades to the standard.

The point wouldn't be to limit competition, but to make it practical for one radio (in a given
band) to be able to be fully interoperable with any agency's radios as needed, in both
conventional and trunking operation.

Unified communications standards will become ever more critical as time passes. There
is no way around that and I think you all know this. And those standards will evolve over
time, which will place a reasonable burden of responsibility on all involved agencies to
upgrade their systems from time to time.