For my tower work I am happy with Cheap radios... Public safety is another world...but the point I so poorly tried to make Is that I like the sound of my Icoms over the Motorola ones used around my area...but again I didnt like the Harris digital voice either. Its me.. Okay...stop making sense ...my head will blow up
Jaime Solorza On Nov 4, 2015 6:56 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Firstnet is still an 8 billion dollar pipe dream. VoLTE is still > vaporware. P25, like it or not, is really the only viable option right now. > Sure, twenty years from now P25 might not be the right option. But right > now, show me another? > > Tetra isn't an option because there aren't enough 25KHz channels to make a > large system work in most cases. And if you want to see expensive try out a > tetra terminal. They make P25 look reasonable. By the way, Motorola > invented Tetra too. > > Blaming Motorola for inventing something, and then not wanting to give it > away is simply rediculous. Would you do that? > > Lastly, you are not seriously comparing a $100 Chinese piece of crap to a > piece of gear you would bet your life on are you? Really? About the > cheapest P25 portable you can get is $1250 while the same model without P25 > is about $855. So the license to do P25 is about $400. Pretty pricey no > doubt. Maybe to much, but also reliable. > > But, not everyone wants the reliability, interoperability, or the price > tag that goes with it. > > I honestly think DMR TIER 3 has some compelling arguements at a better > price point. But like most other protocols it is late to the party. > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, 6:21 PM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > Thanks Brian. No, Utah is asking the taxpayer for $236 million... > > Lots of people arguing against it. > > > > *From:* Brian Webster <i...@wirelessmapping.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:57 PM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT 2-way radio systems > > P25 or Project 25 was a Motorola proprietary technology that was developed > in the 80’s. They championed it to APCO to become the digital standard for > public safety radio systems. APCO would not adopt it until Motorola agree > to license it to other manufacturers. That delayed the process a very long > time and Motorola went kicking and screaming in to the agreements at first. > It was not cheap for a manufacturer to go that way but APCO did not want a > single vendor solution. In the rest of the world the Tetra standard was > adopted but again this are older technologies. Now the push is for LTE and > Voice over LTE. When the FCC mandated narrowbanding for analog VHF and UHF > radio systems they gave a 15 year window to migrate. Even with that much > lead time big cities like NYC, Boston, DC and others did not make the > deadline because it was typically a complete system replacement. These big > cities got waivers with a plan to migrate, those plans were special > licenses for the Firstnet spectrum and the plan to develop a public safety > grade/reliable voice over IP type network to become their primary dispatch > radio system in conjunction with their data deployments. That VoLTE > development is ongoing. They need a lot more reliability than what Nextel > and CDMA push to talk cellular solutions currently deliver. > > > > Given that VoLTE development and the push for FirstNet systems, many folks > argue that it’s a waste of money to go P25 at this point. There are even > some Tetra deployments now in the US. Seems to me a standard that follows > LTE and will also work in the narrowband spectrum of public safety radio > systems is more productive. I started my wireless career in public safety > radio designing and selling Motorola systems. I think they build a great > product but P25 radios are way too expensive for smaller agencies to afford > them. With the proliferation of sub $100 FCC approved Chinese radios out > there, it’s real hard to justify these digital systems when one is on a > budget. P25 radios are in the $1500 per radio price range. Small fire, EMS > and law enforcement agencies have a hard time paying those prices. There > are benefits to digital systems but in all honesty many users don’t take > advantage of them. The cost of the central site controllers for the system > really pushes the price tag up. To add insult to injury almost all federal > grant programs now state that if there are radios involved, they HAVE to be > P25 compliant. The DOD has mandated all radios be P25 compliant. If Utah is > getting grant money that is probably why they are going P25. > > > > Thank You, > > Brian Webster > > www.wirelessmapping.com > > www.Broadband-Mapping.com > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *chuck@ > <ch...@wbmfg.com>wbmfg.com <ch...@wbmfg.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:56 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT 2-way radio systems > > > > Thanks, that is helpful. > > > > *From:* George <geo...@cbcast.com>Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2015 2:50 PM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT 2-way radio systems > > > > Illinois has state-wide P25 (owned and operated by Motorola Solutions). > Interoperability between agencies and all of the other P25 stuff is nice, > but every little town can't afford it and that's why we still have little > dispatch centers that represent small communities and make use of regular > old analog VHF. Plus, a lot of users on the state system say the coverage > sucks, and that would be Motorola not building enough sites. > > On 11/4/2015 1:16 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: > > In Utah, there is a very very large proposal to change all the 2-way > radios for public safety out to a P25 system.� Some of the opponents say > this is an outdated system.� I had not heard that before.� Looking for > opinions.� > > > > > >
