ProVoice Scanner?

[vdsteelman]

:?:

Hi all,

Has anyone heard rumors that there might be a scanner coming soon that will be able to pick-up EDACS ProVoice transmissions? If so, what is the manufacturer? I have searched all day and can't find anything, but I heard that there may be one coming out in the future...perhaps an April Fools Day joke???

Thanks!

 

[scannerfreak]

Rumor has it that Uniden is in R&D for a pro-voice capable scanner.

 

[fireman_justin]

there isn't going to be a pro-voice scanner for quite some time. m/a-com will not let that technology out of the bag. . . yet.

 

[greenthumb]

there isn't going to be a pro-voice scanner for quite some time. m/a-com will not let that technology out of the bag. . . yet.

They didn't let the EDACS technology "out of the bag" either, did they? :shock:

 

[rdale]

Not related... ProVoice is not something you can legally reverse engineer.

 

[FPO703]

Supposedly, MA/COM is supposed to be making ProVoice APCO-25 compliant, or, at least an APCO-25 compliant digital solution.

I wish the FCC would get on the ball and prohibit MA/COM from using any more ProVoice systems and go with APCO-25 which is what they are all supposed to be in the next few years.

 

[N_Jay]

Supposedly, MA/COM is supposed to be making ProVoice APCO-25 compliant, or, at least an APCO-25 compliant digital solution.

I wish the FCC would get on the ball and prohibit MA/COM from using any more ProVoice systems and go with APCO-25 which is what they are all supposed to be in the next few years.

M/A-COM is selling p25 equipment and systems.

It is up to them to decide if they will drop Provoice or not.

The FCC does not need to get into this decision.

 

[DaveNF2G]

It's the FCC's failure to specify a standard that has produced this situation in the first place. They've become as useless as the FDA or any other "regulator" that is under the spell of those it is supposed to regulate. "Getting the FCC involved" will help nobody unless it changes the way it operates.

 

[fireant]

This may be a dum question if FCC would get on the ball and prohibit MA/COM from using any more ProVoice systems and go with APCO-25 which is what they are all supposed to be in the next few years

What effect would that have on the systems out there would it mean that these departments buying into this wasted their money????

fireant

 

[mdfillipp]

Not related... ProVoice is not something you can legally reverse engineer.

Please elaborate.

 

[N_Jay]

Not related... ProVoice is not something you can legally reverse engineer.

Please elaborate.

The VOCODER is proteted by patents.

 

[swrvninmypala]

Can someone please explain what "Provoice" means?

 

[swrvninmypala]

Can someone please explain what "Provoice" means?

 

[Chris54]

Hmmm?

Policticians are bought and sold, and that is how they are regulated. Politicians regulate the FCC. Why should MA/COM come under the gun for having a different system, especially if they are makings strides to bridge the APCO 25 gap? APCO 25 is for getting emergency systems on a similar sheet of music for interoperability. If MA/COM works in that direction voluntarily, and it seems that they have, is it right to beat them with a stick because of their vocorder? Then we have all of those anti-trust issues to think about ,if a single company is pushed to a position of a communications Czar status.

I still believe it is about time and money. We have never had a permanent stumbling block with newer technologies and scanners being developed in accordance. MA/COM could sit on their proprietary digital signaling, but it would be foolish to loose all that money for not allowing a Provoice scanner. Do not focus too much on the Provoice alone. It is the encryption on any system, whether MA/COM or Motorola that is the real killer to scanner listeners.

 

[N_Jay]

Can someone please explain what "Provoice" means?

As has been said MANY times before; (Read: Do a search)
ProVoice is M/A-COM's proprietary digital voice system.
It can be used on CONVENTIONAL (non-trunked) or EDACS (M/A-COM Proprietary trunked ) systems.
It uses 9600 BPS and a version of the IMBE vocoder.

 

[silverbk]

there isn't going to be a pro-voice scanner for quite some time. m/a-com will not let that technology out of the bag. . . yet.

They said the same thing about apco25 and EDACS but they were reverse engineered without violating any of the intellectual property of the respective companies. I suspect a similar chain of events for pro voice, unless they use encryption, which we all know is illegal, by act of congress to decrypt, so pro voice may become protected by law.

I believe in the PA project they promised to provide monitor only units for the media, and once they do that, the technology wil be out there.

 

[N_Jay]

there isn't going to be a pro-voice scanner for quite some time. m/a-com will not let that technology out of the bag. . . yet.

They said the same thing about apco25 and EDACS but they were reverse engineered without violating any of the intellectual property of the respective companies. I suspect a similar chain of events for pro voice, unless they use encryption, which we all know is illegal, by act of congress to decrypt, so pro voice may become protected by law.

I believe in the PA project they promised to provide monitor only units for the media, and once they do that, the technology wil be out there.

P-25 is an open standard, you can BUY the documents and the VOCODER, although owned by DVSI, must be licensed under "Fair and Reasonable" terms.

Reverse enginering a control channel is a fairly simple task.
Reverse engineering a Vocoder (without violating any patents) is almost imposible.

AND

The PA Project is not Provioce nor EDACS.

Getting your hands on an OpenSky unit won't help much either.