mrm1951
Member
I know that the 396 is going to be a great scanner for the Motorola system but what's being done to monitor the Provoice systems like the one in San Antonio?
Edacs Provoice
- Thread starter mrm1951
- Start date
- Status
mrm1951,
Welcome to the group!
Provoice systems cannot be monitored unless you buy a radio (that is, a real radio not a scanner) designed specifically for Provoice.
This has been discussed at length around here, it should be easy to find the threads dealing with it.
Welcome to the group!
Provoice systems cannot be monitored unless you buy a radio (that is, a real radio not a scanner) designed specifically for Provoice.
This has been discussed at length around here, it should be easy to find the threads dealing with it.
safetyobc
Member
UPMan posted this on strongsignals:
UPMan said:
lschmidt
Member
Why does MA/COM seem to have so much power over Uniden,RS and
others when it comes to keeping them from making scanners that could
monitor it's ProVoice and Open Sky systems?
others when it comes to keeping them from making scanners that could
monitor it's ProVoice and Open Sky systems?
safetyobc
Member
patents I'm sure
N
N_Jay
Guest
lschmidt said:
Patented and coptrights as well as a limited market for Provoice.
OpenSky is also cellular in nature so a scanner is likely not to be very good even if you could build one. (Not many companies want to build a product that will disapoint the customer.)
N
N_Jay
Guest
Voyager said:
Never going to happen. Too many "States Rights" issues.
It would be like the Feds dictating what type of gun, or what type of car they have to buy!
Pro-95
Member
Although I agree in the legality, it would seem that "Homeland Security" and interoperability would force the issue.N_Jay said:
Just my two cents.You can interoperate just fine with ProVoice/APCO25/conventional so that's not really an issue.
rdale said:
You CAN? Well, then, any P25 scanner should monitor a ProVoice system just fine if they are interoperable. :wink:
It's not that the manufacturers have power over Uniden - it's the government's patent and copyright laws that Uniden is afraid of (and for good reason - it could cost them MILLION$!)
The limited market issue is valid, too, and goes with the patent infringement issue. Are you going to risk a huge lawsuit to add a feature that will not sell that many more scanners? I doubt they would risk it if everything were ProVoice.
And yes, Homeland Security does have great power. Didn't they only give grants for P25 systems? You want a grant, your system has to be P25. It's not much of a stretch to force interoperability on any government entity. Private systems are another matter.
Joe M.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Voyager said:
Yep, its all in the planning.
Yes, interoperation is easier with everyone using the same technology, but you can build plans that work around the problems of different systems.
N_Jay said:
To me, having a common channel such as the I-CALL and I-TACs are no replacement for TRUE interoperability. With true interoperability, the people on one system can monitor the goings-on on an adjacent system. Having to rely on a dispatch center to relay that a car is heading your way is no replacement for hearing it first hand. It wastes time, and there is ALWAYS loss of content/detail in any human-relayed message. That's a fact proven countless times.
You can equip all the units with CBs so they can talk to each other and call it interoperability. You can also give everyone a cell phone. Both are interoperability to a point, but it's not EFFECTIVE interoperability. There is no replacement for first hand communications.
Joe M.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Voyager said:
It would be nice if it was that simple.
In reality you always need to plan for interoperability, even across things as simple as frequency band issues.
- Status
Similar threads
