Where is Motorola???

[CoffeeDrinker]

I asked this same question a couple of months ago. There wasn't much of a discussion.

Where is Motorola?

When I logged on to RadioReference today I saw a bunch of new news items. The first couple are from EF Johnson and then there are a bunch from MA/COM. It seems that in the last year or so all I am seeing is news about MA/COM. They have sold this or that or developed this other thing.

I rarely see anything about Motorola. WHY? :?: Does anyone have any ideas?

 

[Voyager]

I asked this same question a couple of months ago. There wasn't much of a discussion.

Where is Motorola?

When I logged on to RadioReference today I saw a bunch of new news items. The first couple are from EF Johnson and then there are a bunch from MA/COM. It seems that in the last year or so all I am seeing is news about MA/COM. They have sold this or that or developed this other thing.

I rarely see anything about Motorola. WHY? :?: Does anyone have any ideas?

I suspect it's because they are the standard and little is new about them. M/A-Com is trying to get their foot in the door, and although they have sold several systems, I don't know of any that are fully operational. EFJ is big into LTR (since they invented it), and have always been mostly into business systems with a few PS systems here and there. But, they are trying to push into the PS market more. Why don't you hear about Motorola? Because they have been in the PS market so long, it's not news when they put in a new system. They are selling systems all over the place, however.

Joe M.

 

[Pro-95]

I was going to add that since the wide area systems I seen theirs works so no one needs to talk about it. Just setup, install, it works and leave it alone.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

(... theirs works so no one needs to talk about it. Just setup, install, it works and leave it alone.

A few days ago I was reading someplace about a statewide Motorola system in Florida being replaced by some other vendor. Is that true? An installed wide area Motorola system being replaced.

 

[qoatzecotl]

I think they're going PROVoice...

 

[W4KRR]

A few days ago I was reading someplace about a statewide Motorola system in Florida being replaced by some other vendor. Is that true? An installed wide area Motorola system being replaced.

Yes, the State of Florida Motorola APCO-25 digital system (which was never completed statewide) is being replaced by an EDACS ProVoice system, which will run full time encryption. It's already up and running on the west coast and a few other areas of the state.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

What is the reason for the switch? It sounds expensive. They could probably resell their equipment, but I'm sure they would indure a loss. Plus all of the installation cost would be lost.

Motorola does full encryption. Why didn't they go with Motorola's offering.

 

[N_Jay]

What is the reason for the switch? It sounds expensive. They could probably resell their equipment, but I'm sure they would indure a loss. Plus all of the installation cost would be lost.

Motorola does full encryption. Why didn't they go with Motorola's offering.

Politics has NOTHING to do with anything! :twisted:

 

[fireant]

What, I find amusing is everyone going pro voice and in the future there will be a scanner to pick it up, and they wasted all this money to do pro voice. I have used motorolla great radios have a friend in florida who is using the new pro voice system very unhappy with it said motorolla system is alot better but he told me its not his decision to make

fireant

 

[N_Jay]

What, I find amusing is everyone going pro voice and in the future there will be a scanner to pick it up, and they wasted all this money to do pro voice. I have used motorolla great radios have a friend in florida who is using the new pro voice system very unhappy with it said motorolla system is alot better but he told me its not his decision to make

fireant

What I find "amusing" is that people here believe that the entire value of the change to a pro-voice system is to prevent people from listening.

As for the change from Mot to M/A-COM, there are probabaly lots of reasons, some public some not, some rational some not.

But that is the nature of government purchasing. Love it or leave it!

 

[loumaag]

What I find "amusing" is that people here believe that the entire value of the change to a pro-voice system is to prevent people from listening.

As for the change from Mot to M/A-COM, there are probabaly lots of reasons, some public some not, some rational some not.

But that is the nature of government purchasing. Love it or leave it!

Good points. I am a little confused about one aspect though. Since 9/11 there has been a lot of federal money floating around for communications upgrades with the stated purpose of interoperablity. It was my understanding that one of the caveats associated with this money is that any future purchases with this government money be APCO-25 capable communications. Since ProVoice digital is not, where the hell is the money coming from or more to the point, how can a local (state or below) agency afford to not take the money offered? :?

 

[N_Jay]

What I find "amusing" is that people here believe that the entire value of the change to a pro-voice system is to prevent people from listening.

As for the change from Mot to M/A-COM, there are probabaly lots of reasons, some public some not, some rational some not.

But that is the nature of government purchasing. Love it or leave it!

Good points. I am a little confused about one aspect though. Since 9/11 there has been a lot of federal money floating around for communications upgrades with the stated purpose of interoperablity. It was my understanding that one of the caveats associated with this money is that any future purchases with this government money be APCO-25 capable communications. Since ProVoice digital is not, where the hell is the money coming from or more to the point, how can a local (state or below) agency afford to not take the money offered? :?

I don't know if they are using any DHS finding.

I also know that some people read the DHS P-25 interoperability "requirment" differently than others read it!

I can not say whose reading is correct.

(Did she say "Don't stop!" or "Don't!, Stop!") :twisted:

 

[hulka]

I highly doubt that there will be a scanner to pick up an encrypted transmission in the future. I know that the Motorola secure in the Astro radios is a 24 letter & number mixture that is put into the "key" for the secure. The possibilities are endless. Besides it is illegal to decode and encrypted message.

 

[loumaag]

I highly doubt that there will be a scanner to pick up an encrypted transmission in the future. I know that the Motorola secure in the Astro radios is a 24 letter & number mixture that is put into the "key" for the secure. The possibilities are endless. Besides it is illegal to decode and encrypted message.

Although a valid point, what is your point?

No one suggested there will ever be a scanner to pickup encrypted comms. I am confused by your post. :?

 

[K5MAR]

I highly doubt that there will be a scanner to pick up an encrypted transmission in the future. I know that the Motorola secure in the Astro radios is a 24 letter & number mixture that is put into the "key" for the secure. The possibilities are endless. Besides it is illegal to decode and encrypted message.

Although a valid point, what is your point?

No one suggested there will ever be a scanner to pickup encrypted comms. I am confused by your post. :?

Lou, Fireant made this post which at least "suggests" scanning encrypted comms, in context of the earlier post about Florida going to ProVoice encrypted:

What, I find amusing is everyone going pro voice and in the future there will be a scanner to pick it up, and they wasted all this money to do pro voice. I have used motorolla great radios have a friend in florida who is using the new pro voice system very unhappy with it said motorolla system is alot better but he told me its not his decision to make

Of course, Fireant never said a ProVoice scanner with encrypted capability, but it is confusing with both ProVoice and encryption being mentioned in this (and other) threads, and being sometimes used interchangably by some. I'm not pointing any fingers here, but people do need to be more careful in their usage of terminology. As far as I know, ProVoice is a proprietary digital audio encoding scheme, and encrypting these comms would be something over and above this. Correct?

Mark S.

 

[jpm]

interoperability

Here is how interoperability is used here in illinois. We will give the mutual aid fire departments a radio so we can communicate with them on mutual aid calls. Here is the bigger joke..box alarm report to the incident command and they will give us a radio. Or better yet lets keep the old vhf radios too. I myself don't see this interoperability working unless the whole state goes on a nationwide trs and the only way it will work. Until then lets give the surrounding towns our digital radios and keep the vhf radios so we have interoperability. And my final thought cook county is going to be totally encrypted so don't waste your time with reporting ids. Unless the county coppers have that final say so that they want both mobile and portable equipment and it being too expensive to encrypt the whole trs with both portables and mobile radios . My final thought on interoperability I don't see it working in illinois because everyone is getting different equipment, ie; EDACS Motorola etc. and different frequencies for thier trs. Ie; uhf 800trs. Lets see Hoffman estates is on a analog system and several are digital with no interoperability of the frequencies. Northwest Central Dispatch has both a analog trs and digital trs great for interoperability but Hoffman Esataes and Streamwood don't want to convert to the digital syatem. well i'm done with this interoperability and only see this working on a county trs.

 

[loumaag]

...As far as I know, ProVoice is a proprietary digital audio encoding scheme, and encrypting these comms would be something over and above this. Correct?

Mark, that is the way I have always understood it and I guess since mostly I try to read narrowly, I didn't see the connection. Oh, Well.

 

[Pro-95]

Good points. And I tend to agree. Unless there is a true radio standard and interoperability only means a linking mechanizim then we are bound for more trouble as adding anything to make something work only adds something else to go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.

I find this at our state level as well. With the amount of funds blown it seems as though the state could have stayed 150Mhz (for range and existing freqs), Motorola Smartnet II upgraded ALL the entities to Moto-II and we would be done already plus everyone would be on the same page. Then interoperability links to adjoining states would only be need to be done. And in the case of Nevada/Utah, there is nothing to be done as Utah is also Moto-II.

Interchangeable Parts (interoperability) is not new, it was started way back by some guy named Jefferson, Thomas. He insisted on the parts to be common for weapons in the military so that a boatload of totally different weapons didn't need a boatload of different parts and a united military could function without excessive logistics. So here we are 180 years later still working with different systems and trying to make them all work together again. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[loumaag]

Re: interoperability

...My final thought on interoperability I don't see it working in illinois because everyone is getting different equipment, ie; EDACS Motorola etc. and different frequencies for thier trs. Ie; uhf 800trs. Lets see Hoffman estates is on a analog system and several are digital with no interoperability of the frequencies. Northwest Central Dispatch has both a analog trs and digital trs great for interoperability but Hoffman Esataes and Streamwood don't want to convert to the digital syatem. well i'm done with this interoperability and only see this working on a county trs.

I don't want to wander too far down this path as it has been hashed out before, but my point was, DHS money is there for the taking, if you go with APCO-25 standards (either conventional or trunked). It (according to my understanding) is not available if you go it your own way, like ProVoice digital or LTR (which can't be digital). Could you still have interoperablilty on a EDACS ProVoice system with another group operating on APCO-25. I am not sure, of course the radio can be programed with additional frequencies (not on the TRS for example) but I am not sure if a radio can have both ProVoice and P-25 encoder/decoder in it at the same time. Just been away from it too long now. :?

 

[N_Jay]

Re: interoperability

. . . I don't want to wander too far down this path as it has been hashed out before, but my point was, DHS money is there for the taking, if you go with APCO-25 standards (either conventional or trunked). It (according to my understanding) is not available if you go it your own way, like ProVoice digital or LTR (which can't be digital). Could you still have interoperablilty on a EDACS ProVoice system with another group operating on APCO-25. I am not sure, of course the radio can be programed with additional frequencies (not on the TRS for example) but I am not sure if a radio can have both ProVoice and P-25 encoder/decoder in it at the same time. Just been away from it too long now. :?

Two points;

The DHS money thing is not a hard and fast rule. (Weather it was intended to be or whether it should be is a whole different discussion.)

Interoperability does not necessaraly mean every radio has to work on every system. There are many ways to provide interoperability between incompatable systems.

And yes, some vendors are including P-25 modes in there proprietary network field equipment. (OK, three points, So shoot me!)