TETRA to be allowed

[Raccon]

Motorola's "overpriced proprietary systems" are based on the so-called open standard of Project 25. Why would you expect them to behave any differently with TETRA?

I wasn't referring to P25, think iDEN and such.

 

[Raccon]

Common sense. This thread was about the expansion of Tetra and an FCC Rule making. As a Senator from North Carolina once said in televised Hearings, "I can understand English, it was my mother's tongue"

Common sense doesn't necessarily mean fact however; you said it was renamed because it was to be marketed in the USA but the name was changed so it could be marketed globally, where it has been sold way before it became available in the USA. You may even say it was sold everywhere except in the USA until recently.

APCO-25 is an "open standard" in the same sense as TETRA. All ITU approved protocols require that the intellectual property be available for license to others on normal commercial terms.

Anyone who wants to purchase a license can make P-25, Tetra, Edacs equipment. Many make all of these, only P-25 did Motorola have a hand in the initial development.

I am not sure what you are trying to say ... ?

I have no idea what "home-made" systems are.

"home-made" = proprietary

 

[MTS2000des]

it's coming to Georgia, two large electric utility companies are building out UHF TETRA networks to replace their aging analog systems including one in my county, Cobb EMC (who currently uses an EDACS/ProVoice 900MHz trunking system and has since the early 1990s).

MissionCritical Communications, Radio Resource International, and Public Safety Report - wireless voice and data communications for mobile, remote and public safety operations

 

[DaveNF2G]

Common sense doesn't necessarily mean fact however; you said it was renamed because it was to be marketed in the USA but the name was changed so it could be marketed globally, where it has been sold way before it became available in the USA. You may even say it was sold everywhere except in the USA until recently.


I am not sure what you are trying to say ... ?


"home-made" = proprietary

You need to go back and follow your own comments better.

The "common sense" remark was in response to your question about what made us think this was about the United States. Common sense should tell you that an FCC document is about the United States. You've gone off on a tangent by not following your own conversation logically.

 

[Raccon]

You need to go back and follow your own comments better.

Same suggestion to you - follow my comments better:

The "common sense" remark was in response to your question about what made us think this was about the United States.

So far so good, but then ...

Common sense should tell you that an FCC document is about the United States. You've gone off on a tangent by not following your own conversation logically.

My question was in direct response to the following:

Notice I was careful to specify what TETRA stood for when it was invented and approved. It was Later when the marketing folks realized that "Trans -European" was not a good name to use in the USA that they suddenly decided to change the expansion of the word Tetra.

What makes you think this was about the USA?

See anything mentioned about the FCC document? Nope, lep was going on about the renaming of TETRA and that it was supposedly changed 'when the marketing folks realized that "Trans -European" was not a good name to use in the USA'.

As pointed out the name was changed a long time ago to market it globally, so it certainly had nothing to do with the FCC document that is about the USA (or marketing TETRA in the US now).

 

[lep]

The post in #1 that started this thread was an FCC proceeding! So of course it was about TETRA in the USA. I was at the approval in ITU Study Group 8 (now called SG 5) in Geneve when TETRA was approved as a digital protocol. I was just amused that it was then called Trans European and now has another name.
If that annoys you, so be it.

 

[DaveNF2G]

See anything mentioned about the FCC document? Nope, lep was going on about the renaming of TETRA and that it was supposedly changed 'when the marketing folks realized that "Trans -European" was not a good name to use in the USA'.

As pointed out the name was changed a long time ago to market it globally, so it certainly had nothing to do with the FCC document that is about the USA (or marketing TETRA in the US now).

Your logic still fails.

"Globally" includes "to the USA." The largest radio market is the USA.

 

[Raccon]

Your logic still fails.

"Globally" includes "to the USA." The largest radio market is the USA.

It's irrelevant that the US is the largest radio market, TETRA couldn't be sold there until recently so the name was changed to market it in most other countries globally. Although 'globally' includes the US that place probably ranked right at the bottom of the list when the name change was being considered.

The post in #1 that started this thread was an FCC proceeding! So of course it was about TETRA in the USA.

Did I claim this thread was not about the FCC proceeding and TETRA in the US? Geez.

I objected your statement (you know, the one I quoted and directly responded to) where you apparently relate the name change to recent events, which is not true. Let me remind you what your wrote:

Notice I was careful to specify what TETRA stood for when it was invented and approved. It was Later when the marketing folks realized that "Trans -European" was not a good name to use in the USA that they suddenly decided to change the expansion of the word Tetra.

'Later' was not recently when TETRA was finally allowed to be sold 'in the USA', it was a decade or so ago when TETRA was going to be marketed globally ex US because it couldn't be sold there at the time.

I was at the approval in ITU Study Group 8 (now called SG 5) in Geneve when TETRA was approved as a digital protocol. I was just amused that it was then called Trans European and now has another name.
If that annoys you, so be it.

Why would that annoy me? I have no issue with the name change or the name itself.

 

[DaveNF2G]

The last two comments are misattributed. I did not write them. In fact, your quote indicates the correct source as lep.

The trouble with discussing things with you, as I have already noted and has sailed right over your head, is that your reasoning is faulty and you have trouble following a logical thread. Your last posting demonstrates those same failings yet again.

Please note that, if this is because of some mental handicap, then I apologize for giving offense by criticizing your reasoning powers. We have been through a similar scenario with another user who was even less capable of organized self-expression and who was, in addition, emotionally unstable. I don't want to trigger a similar explosion by being insensitive.

 

[Raccon]

The last two comments are misattributed. I did not write them. In fact, your quote indicates the correct source as lep.

And where exactly did I say that you wrote them? Why do you think I include quotes including the name of the poster - so I can attribute them to someone else or so that everyone can see to whom and which statement I am referring to?
Evidently it flew right over your head that I responded to two different posters (i.e. you and lep) in the same post, even I attributed the quotes correctly - as you state yourself - by including the name (at least in the first quote, if multiple, for each poster that I reply to).

So misattribution on my part or misinterpretation on your's? Honestly, I can't tell if you are actually serious or just trying to pull a fast one here.

The trouble with discussing things with you, as I have already noted and has sailed right over your head, is that your reasoning is faulty and you have trouble following a logical thread. Your last posting demonstrates those same failings yet again.

Yada, yada, yada. You got it wrong when you said:

[...]

The "common sense" remark was in response to your question about what made us think this was about the United States. [...]

As everyone but you can see I was directly responding in post 14 to a specific statement made by lep in post 13, who replied to my question (the one in post 14) with the "common sense" remark in post 19 and I replied back in post 22 again - there was no 'us' in there until you decided to make it so in post 24. Until then it was just lep and me, but I already explained that to you in post 25.

Please note that, if this is because of some mental handicap, then I apologize for giving offense by criticizing your reasoning powers. We have been through a similar scenario with another user who was even less capable of organized self-expression and who was, in addition, emotionally unstable. I don't want to trigger a similar explosion by being insensitive.

Is that an attempt of an excuse for being passive-aggressive and concealed insults? Just checking ...

 

[DaveNF2G]

Evidently it flew right over your head that I responded to two different posters

That is not the common practice, so you should expect some confusion when you do it.

Is that an attempt of an excuse for being passive-aggressive and concealed insults? Just checking ...

It is what it is, which is exactly what I said. I am trying to make allowances in case you are handicapped rather than simply rude. You would not be the first one on here to jump all over people because of a personal problem.

 

[lep]

The whole matter is getting silly. If TETRA is coming, fine, so be it. I someone makes a scanner to listen to it fine, so be it.

 

[Raccon]

That is not the common practice, so you should expect some confusion when you do it.

There was no confusion as you said yourself that I included the correct name in the quote. But interesting to see that you still try to find a way to blame your shortcomings on me instead of apologizing for your false accusations, or at least saying something along the line of "My bad". That's bad form at best but suit yourself.

It is what it is, which is exactly what I said. I am trying to make allowances in case you are handicapped rather than simply rude. You would not be the first one on here to jump all over people because of a personal problem.

You are the one that injected himself into the discussion between lep and me and immediately started throwing ad hominem attacks around by saying I can't follow my own posts, that my logic fails, that I may be mentally handicapped or have a personal problem .... that makes you the rude one here, not me.
Perhaps I am the one that should make allowances and assume that you are merely projecting your own issues one me.

Anyway, I won't respond further but feel free to continue digging yourself deeper into the hole.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Time for a moderator to lock the thread. This guy is just like alexmahoney et al.

 

[parawarn]

PowerTrunk TETRA issue: 700 MHz support

Any updates on PowerTrunk support for 700 MHz channels for TETRA radios?