Why people choose MotoTrbo
I know many readers of this site are hostile to MotoTrbo (at least until there's a commercially available scanner for it
. I'm hoping to offset some of the negative reviews by sharing my experience as a system administrator. We have been testing a MotoTrbo system since July. Our test site is Ringo Ranger (no kidding) at 20 feet. The repeater is a Mot XPR8330, with a 100W Crescend PA, Celwave pre-selector, and Telewave duplexer. For SUs we're piloting XPR4550s with 5/8 wave antennas. The system is VHF.
Looking at the preceding paragraph, you would have low expectations, and I did. I was surprised to be have prefect portable coverage 10 miles from the site, and acceptable (but spotty) mobile coverage at 30 miles out. For comparison we used the same equipment in analog mode and had no usable signal in either situation. We sub'd a Vertex VX9000 and VX4204 with even worse results (wouldn't even open squelch). So my first point in defense of TRBO is algorithm works with a higher SNR than narrowband FM.
Then there's having two time slots; double system capacity.
Finally, we were able to deploy a full blown AVL system (web based and accessible from everyone's iStuff) with email and text messaging gateways for about $3k.
Up until we did this pilot we were ready to spend 10 times the amount for a P25 voice/data system.
TRBO met our functional requirements at a fraction of the cost of an "open" system, and beats the daylights of out analog.
I'm wondering what it's going to be like this spring when we change our production network to TRBO and turn down the pilot system. The production system is at 100 feet with a nice DB224 antenna.
Not to say the arguments presented aren't valid, but there are good reasons for businesses using TRBO and it has nothing to with hating the scanner hobbyist. Under certain conditions, I might even okay TRBO for small public safety systems.