Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 56 Motorola Multi-Group

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 14, 2012
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 195 Times in 90 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default 56 Motorola Multi-Group

    Does adding this feature code allow a Harris radio to properly follow Motorola patch announcements?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 22, 2014
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 30 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    In my experience yes.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 14, 2015
    Location
    Nowhere near a paved road.
    Posts
    278
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 316 Times in 139 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    It allows Harris radios to follow Motorola's proprietary Multi-Group patch system, which IS NOT part of the Project-25 protocol.

    It was one of my projects before I retired from Harris in 2012.
    Gatorbait3014
    Retired Master Two-Way Radio Master Technician & System Engineer (34+ years)

    My goal in life is to become as wonderful as my dog thinks I am.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 22, 2014
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 30 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gatorbait3014 View Post
    It allows Harris radios to follow Motorola's proprietary Multi-Group patch system, which IS NOT part of the Project-25 protocol.

    It was one of my projects before I retired from Harris in 2012.
    Indeed. The inverse however isn't true. We have had to set our system to use "Motorola style patches" in order for Motorola radios to follow them on the system.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 27, 2012
    Posts
    103
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 71 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    This is another example of a "dual standard." (Similar to "compliant" simulcast) Both Motorola and Harris versions of Group Regrouping are now the "standard." TIA 102.AABH.

    It's up to each manufacturer to implement both flavors in their equipment. Prior to the standard, each kept their method proprietary and the competitor had to reverse the other's code to make it work. That led to "not quite perfect" code and caused issues crossing between versions. When the standard was released, the curtain was lifted and each could correctly build each others version.

    Standard was adopted in late 2014.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 08, 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    429
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 279 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom View Post
    This is another example of a "dual standard." (Similar to "compliant" simulcast) Both Motorola and Harris versions of Group Regrouping are now the "standard." TIA 102.AABH.

    It's up to each manufacturer to implement both flavors in their equipment. Prior to the standard, each kept their method proprietary and the competitor had to reverse the other's code to make it work. That led to "not quite perfect" code and caused issues crossing between versions. When the standard was released, the curtain was lifted and each could correctly build each others version.

    Standard was adopted in late 2014.
    It is really one of those features that has to work first time, every time. Why it wasn't standardized is one of those P25 "my$terie$"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 14, 2012
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 195 Times in 90 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    From what I had heard, the reason they didn't build in patches as part of the standard is because they couldn't agree on the best way to do it. IE, Motorola thought theirs was best, Harris thought theirs was etc... Glad to see it's all been standardized for the most part.