powerlineman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 121
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
FCC Chairman reports on the failed P25 digital radio effort
- Thread starter powerlineman
- Start date
- Status
radionerd13669
Useless Contributor
rankin39
Member
So, now that many states, municipalities and the federal government have invested billions in P25 technology, the manufacturers (guess who?) would like the taxpayer to send them a check for multi-billions more to "fix" the "failed" systems -- and during a recession too. Heh, heh, might be simpler and one whole helluva lot cheaper to just hand out CB radios to responding personnel, or, better yet, make all of 'em get their ham licenses. "When all else fails...."
Bob, w0nxn
Bob, w0nxn
There are several errors and misleading facts stated in the report.
First of all the cost of P25 equipment can't be compared to the cost of cell phones. Phone companies subsidize the cost of the handsets, that's why you have to sign a 2 year contract.
Second, the number of cell phone handsets sold each year world-wide is hundreds of millions. Naturally the cost per handset is going to be low along with the profit per handset.
Third, packet communication will result in a reduction in data rate compared to P25. The overhead for packet is higher than that for P25. Each packet of data has to be receipted for and that requires the receiving device to switch to TX and send an OK every 256 bits or so. While packet communication can supply a more robust communication circuit it requires a wider bandwidth to do so.
I don't believe that a close study of packet will show it to be a better standard than current P25 standards. I also believe that a more robust vocoder will give better results under noisy background conditions.
First of all the cost of P25 equipment can't be compared to the cost of cell phones. Phone companies subsidize the cost of the handsets, that's why you have to sign a 2 year contract.
Second, the number of cell phone handsets sold each year world-wide is hundreds of millions. Naturally the cost per handset is going to be low along with the profit per handset.
Third, packet communication will result in a reduction in data rate compared to P25. The overhead for packet is higher than that for P25. Each packet of data has to be receipted for and that requires the receiving device to switch to TX and send an OK every 256 bits or so. While packet communication can supply a more robust communication circuit it requires a wider bandwidth to do so.
I don't believe that a close study of packet will show it to be a better standard than current P25 standards. I also believe that a more robust vocoder will give better results under noisy background conditions.
KE5TLF
Member
Radio Resource Magazine: OnlyOnline
http://forums.radioreference.com/te...assive-system-patch-gulf-oil-spill-works.html
Interoperability problems???
Pretty much every P25 system in 5 states all linked up in roughly 3 weeks, doesn't seem like a much of a problem to me.
Not to mention there is now a MSWIN site 30 miles offshore IN the Gulf of Mexico. Seems to work quite well around here.
http://forums.radioreference.com/te...assive-system-patch-gulf-oil-spill-works.html
Interoperability problems???
Pretty much every P25 system in 5 states all linked up in roughly 3 weeks, doesn't seem like a much of a problem to me.
Not to mention there is now a MSWIN site 30 miles offshore IN the Gulf of Mexico. Seems to work quite well around here.
powerlineman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 121
What's wrong with analog? Seriously.
Motorola (and others) can't make as much money selling analog only radios. Everyone knows taxpayer money has no limit and is endless.
It isn't digital
The major problem with analog is that it isn't digital. Seriously!
The major problem with analog is that it isn't digital. Seriously!
Josh
Member
Narrowbanding is what's wrong with Analog.
25khz is ok, and maybe 12.5Khz spacing (mandated in 2013) is acceptable, but the next step is to 6.25khz, and with modulated carriers being that low, there will be little decipherable difference between it and noise when the signal gets weak.
Digital modes are used to give back some of the range lost by the narrower band radios (because of error correcting) and also allow for lower modulation while still retaining the audio "volume" on receiving radios.
Not to also mention that digital over analog encryption methods basically suck and range isn't lost in the transition using digital modes over analog.
@25khz spacing, I agree there's no issue with Analog only, but with the FCC requiring things get narrower and narrower, there comes a point where analog isn't able to cut it any longer as a viable and reliable method of modulation.
code3cowboy
Member
As someone who uses analog systems daily and can compare them with the two digital systems around here, I will be the first to say the 12.5khz analog stuff knocks the socks off the P25 stuff. All of it is conventional both repeated and simplex, and the narrow analog stuff just works wonderfully.
I see many engineers and techs who spout about P25 when they are unable to get a solid analog system set up. There are several techs and an engineer locally who can not master simulcast, large coverage gaps, microwave links, and tuning their equipment, but constantly spout about how going P25 trunked will solve all of their issues.
Sadly they have no way of getting the small towns they serve to purchase radios that would negate their ability to purchase new patrol vehicles or ammo or pay their salaries.
Digital is cool for some situations, but it takes at least the same effort as having a solid analog system if not more.
I see many engineers and techs who spout about P25 when they are unable to get a solid analog system set up. There are several techs and an engineer locally who can not master simulcast, large coverage gaps, microwave links, and tuning their equipment, but constantly spout about how going P25 trunked will solve all of their issues.
Sadly they have no way of getting the small towns they serve to purchase radios that would negate their ability to purchase new patrol vehicles or ammo or pay their salaries.
Digital is cool for some situations, but it takes at least the same effort as having a solid analog system if not more.
With both digital as well as analog, it's all about signal-to-noise. Lower deviation will result in more noise in a given situation with analog however analog is copyable at signal-to-noise rates that make digital go silent. I think you will find that 3500 baud over a 6.25 kHz channel is going to be very iffy even in good RF signal conditions. Some will say that data compression will solve that problem but the more you compress the data, the more important your Forward Error Correction becomes. The more robust your FEC, the more bandwidth you need to handle the added data.
12dbsinad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,014
AGREED! As a radio tech, I will put 12.5 narrow analog against P25 everyday of the week all day long and still have you scratching your head saying "WOW we got so wrapped up in this word called digital and this salesman with a really nice tie we forgot its actually supposed to work!" Think of this for a moment, We go from AM to FM technology... Its great! We go from lowband to VHF or UHF band adding a thing called a "PL" tone... its like we died and gone to heaven! Then we get this "can make your coffee in the morning" digital radio system and we wish we were back on lowband! For now, stick to analog if all possible is my advise. Let the bugs get worked out, Beta testing should not be done while your yelling mayday in a burning building or being held at gunpoint. Just my 2 cents!
All i see here is that fact that they want to pursue even worse forms of Digital because supposedly P25 is out of date. Well i think trunking is all good and fine for cities and urban areas but leave the Rural area in VHF so we don't have to spend millions on a system that we barely use compared to the cities.
Baylink
Member
> and this salesman with a really *nice* tie.
<ROAR>
I, too, have been wondering how they made the sale on this, when for public safety comms, it would seem like a much better idea to be able to work down into the noise, instead of having your signal fall off the wall -- without any warning beeps; P25 radios don't have confidence indications, do they?
<ROAR>
I, too, have been wondering how they made the sale on this, when for public safety comms, it would seem like a much better idea to be able to work down into the noise, instead of having your signal fall off the wall -- without any warning beeps; P25 radios don't have confidence indications, do they?
Exactly. Motorola ( Moneyrolla ) is making millions.
I agree digital has its place... But not in Public Safety comms. More susceptable to interference than analog. Digital does no work in rural and mountainous terrain as well as analog. In some instances , you have to have more repeaters with digital than analog, and digital communications in extreme residential areas.. especially in simplex would be decreased.
But its new, and everyone wants to jump on board.
FF - Medic !!!
Last edited:
W2NJS
Member
Someone asked above, "How they made the sale on this." Simple answer is that, given a non-techie audience who are too stupid to hire competent professional advisors, the sales force comes in and expounds on how the latest and greatest will solve all of the municipality's problems. If you're so gullible that you believe everything you're told you're bound to end up screwed. Some, just some, of the items and questions working here are these:
1. What's wrong with our present radio system, if anything?
2. What if we don't have the money to build the whole system at one time?
3. How can we afford to have two or three dispatchers working at the same time when all we need and have now is one?
4. What are the proven advantages of the new system being proposed, if any?
5. Don't we already have some sort of interoperability with adjacent departments using our present analog systems?
You get the idea. If more questions were asked, and more skepticism demonstrated, then the customers would never end up asking themselves, "Why the hell did we do that?"
1. What's wrong with our present radio system, if anything?
2. What if we don't have the money to build the whole system at one time?
3. How can we afford to have two or three dispatchers working at the same time when all we need and have now is one?
4. What are the proven advantages of the new system being proposed, if any?
5. Don't we already have some sort of interoperability with adjacent departments using our present analog systems?
You get the idea. If more questions were asked, and more skepticism demonstrated, then the customers would never end up asking themselves, "Why the hell did we do that?"
instrumentphilip
Member
I totally agree with this, in the last couple of years of me getting really interested in radio and reading up on the P25 system I have yet to understand why the government is mandating the change from Analog. I do not see what all of the hoo-blahhh is all about, a more expensive radio system that takes more money to maintain?
I have read many articles about lots of different problems from signals dropping out instead of fading out and still being readable like Analog systems to digital signals being more easily affected by interference. . . Then again when something comes out a lot of the time the only thing focused on is the bad things. But I am really curious. . . .
Can someone here explain to me what advantages the P25 system has over Analog? I am very curious, I mean besides the extra government spending and radio companies becoming a lot lot more rich overnight, and mandating poor cities or towns that can not afford to upgrade just because the government says that Digital radio is better?
I have read many articles about lots of different problems from signals dropping out instead of fading out and still being readable like Analog systems to digital signals being more easily affected by interference. . . Then again when something comes out a lot of the time the only thing focused on is the bad things. But I am really curious. . . .
Can someone here explain to me what advantages the P25 system has over Analog? I am very curious, I mean besides the extra government spending and radio companies becoming a lot lot more rich overnight, and mandating poor cities or towns that can not afford to upgrade just because the government says that Digital radio is better?
Baylink
Member
Philip: as nearly as I can figure the playing field from outside, it's a side-effect of narrowbanding, applying mostly to agencies whose radio systems are so old they'll have to be replaced to pull it off.
All the development is in P25 and other digital air interface protocols, not trunked analog 12.5, so if you're going to have to rip everything out anyway, why *not* go digital, for incrementally more money, goes the argument.
Of course, the premise "you're going to have to rip everything out anyway" is rarely as true as the salesman would like you to believe, which is probably where most of the problems lie.
All the development is in P25 and other digital air interface protocols, not trunked analog 12.5, so if you're going to have to rip everything out anyway, why *not* go digital, for incrementally more money, goes the argument.
Of course, the premise "you're going to have to rip everything out anyway" is rarely as true as the salesman would like you to believe, which is probably where most of the problems lie.
Digital vs Analog
The main advantage is the added services available using a digital system. Mobile Data Terminals are just one of the nice bells and whistles they can add. Another is spectrum efficiency by reusing the same frequencies over and over like cell towers do. I don't understand why most of these advantages can't be available with analog voice.
The systems around here are not 'true' P25, they are Motorola Type II. As I understand it, their control channel transmits at a lower baud rate but the voice quality is top-notch. When it doesn't drop out or get mushed up by background ambient noise.
The main advantage is the added services available using a digital system. Mobile Data Terminals are just one of the nice bells and whistles they can add. Another is spectrum efficiency by reusing the same frequencies over and over like cell towers do. I don't understand why most of these advantages can't be available with analog voice.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,942
With all of the negative momentum regarding P25 and P25 trunking here, I do feel the need to interject that there are several large, P25 trunked systems in service out there (Minnesota pseudo-statewide, Michigan statewide, Illinois statewide, Colorado statewide, Kansas pseudo-statewide) and the users in these areas aren't screaming that the technology doesn't work or that interoperability is decreased. The users simply wouldn't be flocking to these systems if that was the case.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
