TYCO Electronics Announces Next Generation M/A-COM OpenSky Platform

[zz0468]

Worldwide leader? I don't think so. Sounds like Tyco has delusions of self importance. Having worked with both Motorola and M/A-COM radios since 1993, I think M/A-COM is crap. Many of the officers I speak with think the same thing.

It would probably surprise you to know there are M/A-COM EDACS systems on nearly every large U.S. Navy vessel out there... hundereds of them. Apparently they work just fine. M/A-COM has a piece of the military market that Motorola doesn't have, so I suppose they can call themselves a 'leader'.

Having lived closely with both large EDACS and large Motorola systems, I can say that quality wise, the equipment is quite comparable. And in the early 90's vintage systems that I've had to deal with, EDACS was an order of magnitude ahead when it came to features like wide area coverage.

I've heard first hand that Opensky is an abomination, though. I have to wonder... is it really that bad, or are we just hearing about a handful of really bad implimentations, like we do with EDACS? It was a shame to see such a good product take such a bad rap because no one knew how to properly impliment it as a real system.

 

[zz0468]

At what point does [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M/A-COM start caring about interoperability ? :roll:
[/FONT]

I quite recently went through negotiaions with Motorola and M/A-COM on a $100 million+ size system. Motorola blew a lot of sunshine up our butts regarding interoperability. Just buy their proposal and the new system will talk to everyone else. Just turn it on, and it'll work. Yeah.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]M/A-COM, on the other hand, went into great detail about how to deal with the POLITICS of interoperability, the one thing that makes it so difficult. It's not as much about the technology as you'd think. There are always ways to engineer a solution to a particular interoperability issue, even cross-platform.

So, do they care about it? Yeah, they do. Enough to tell it like it is. Unfortunately, that doesn't sell radios. Making promises does - it doesn't matter if you can keep 'em.


[/FONT]

 

[WayneH]

If there are no additions or corrections to the topic I would appreciate if people would move off to the MA/Com forum or the Tavern. Thanks.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I've heard first hand that Opensky is an abomination, though. I have to wonder... is it really that bad, or are we just hearing about a handful of really bad implimentations, like we do with EDACS? It was a shame to see such a good product take such a bad rap because no one knew how to properly impliment it as a real system.

An aside to wayne_h first: The question of OpenSky's reliability is germane, IMO, to the original topic of this "new" system that is being promoted, so I'm posting this reply here.

To zz0468 - I have yet to hear of any successful implementation of OpenSky. There are two statewide and one regional system under development or active construction (that I've heard much about). Except for New York's system, which is not yet under construction, all reports that I've seen indicate cost overruns, implementation delays, and test failures. Even the demos they tried to run in western New York were plagued with technical problems, to the extent that most fire chiefs who witnessed them have decided not to sign on to the statewide system when and if it ever goes live.