[Art]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Emergency vehicles have been using radios for years with no problems that I am aware of. Channel 9 on a standard CB is also used only in cases of an emergency. So I still don't really understand what the added benefit would be. Does FEMA, National Guard, somebody want their own frequencies? And did television just arbitrarily get chosen to give theirs up for that purpose?

I would argue that emergency frequencies could stand to improve a whole lot.

[tlj009]

It is a good thing...its more reliable and connectivity is increased. Your television's picture is connected to th quality of emergency radio communications.

PDF explaining benefits

I don't understand your comment "Your television's picture is connected to th quality of emergency radio communications". If it is somehow connected, I was much more satisfied with my television before it went digital.

As for your link, I have not read it all. Maybe I will get around to it later. It is rather long. But it seems to be talking about digital answering centers as opposed to analog ones that have circuits and switches. Telephone is not exactly what we are talking about here. At least not the way it is used in the article.

But telephone does remind me of when my analog cellphone got replaced with digital and my coverage area got reduced a good bit.

[tlj009]

I would argue that emergency frequencies could stand to improve a whole lot.

In what ways? Static, range???? If it is anything like digital television, you won't receive a poor transmission. You won't receive a transmission at all. To correct that, the range has to be reduced. In other words, you won't be able to cover as much area. But maybe it is as thtoo suggested and things work differently for radio.

[Nate]

Just the opposite for me.

Instead of spending ~$50 for basic cable or basic satellite with 20 crappy channels, when we moved, I spent ~$100 for a decent amplified outdoor antenna, got a couple of free [actually $20, 'cause I splurged for a model that was priced a bit above the coupon] converter boxes, and haven't looked back.

I get all the local channels from well over 20 miles away from the broadcast towers on the other side of a lake. That gives me all the major broadcast stations, plus some high quality public TV stations. And, with digital cable freeing up the possibility of multiple signals on one band, I also get 24-7 news from one local broadcaster's 2nd channel, and 24-7 weather from another station's 2nd signal.

Couldn't be happier, really.

[Than]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't understand your comment "Your television's picture is connected to th quality of emergency radio communications". If it is somehow connected, I was much more satisfied with my television before it went digital.

As for your link, I have not read it all. Maybe I will get around to it later. It is rather long. But it seems to be talking about digital answering centers as opposed to analog ones that have circuits and switches. Telephone is not exactly what we are talking about here. At least not the way it is used in the article.

But telephone does remind me of when my analog cellphone got replaced with digital and my coverage area got reduced a good bit.

Haha sorry, I mean to write that your television's picture quality is NOT connected to the quality of emergency radio signals. I worked as a reporter covering this and interviewed many first responders, EMTs, etc. and while I'm not going to pretend I know the ins and outs of the technical details they were unanimous in their support of a switch to digital. They all said that emergency radio communications needed to come a long way, and while functional, could stand for improvement.

That's odd about your cell phone...when I switched to a digital one I had reception in places around town where I had very low or no signal strength at all.

[Art]

Originally Posted by tlj009

In what ways? Static, range???? If it is anything like digital television, you won't receive a poor transmission. You won't receive a transmission at all. To correct that, the range has to be reduced. In other words, you won't be able to cover as much area. But maybe it is as thtoo suggested and things work differently for radio.

I think you misunderstand. Emergency frequencies are not going digital. They are taking some of the analog TV freqs. This should help their range and quality.

The fact is, dispatch centers are becoming fewer, larger, and farther apart. In a system that already is not perfect, this presents new challenges, which the new frequencies can only help.

[tlj009]

Haha sorry, I mean to write that your television's picture quality is NOT connected to the quality of emergency radio signals. I worked as a reporter covering this and interviewed many first responders, EMTs, etc. and while I'm not going to pretend I know the ins and outs of the technical details they were unanimous in their support of a switch to digital. They all said that emergency radio communications needed to come a long way, and while functional, could stand for improvement.

But we need to be careful about what exactly we are talking about. Than mentioned digital radio, which I can see being a bad thing. Going digital within call centers could be very good. As for your interviews, are you absolutely sure that they wanted digital in the communications their selves or in the call centers to relay those communications?

That's odd about your cell phone...when I switched to a digital one I had reception in places around town where I had very low or no signal strength at all.

My signal strength dropped in many places outside of town. In town there are almost always towers fairly close. But the battery life improved.

[tlj009]

I think you misunderstand.

I did misunderstand. Thanks.

Emergency frequencies are not going digital. They are taking some of the analog TV freqs. This should help their range and quality.

If a different frequency improves range and quality, then I agree that emergency frequencies should be in the ranges that optimize those aspects.

The fact is, dispatch centers are becoming fewer, larger, and farther apart. In a system that already is not perfect, this presents new challenges, which the new frequencies can only help.

If they help, then great. But I thought that television used some very high frequencies. I am also fairly sure that lower frequencies travel further than higher frequencies. So what am I missing.

[tlj009]

Just the opposite for me.

Instead of spending ~$50 for basic cable or basic satellite with 20 crappy channels, when we moved, I spent ~$100 for a decent amplified outdoor antenna, got a couple of free [actually $20, 'cause I splurged for a model that was priced a bit above the coupon] converter boxes, and haven't looked back.

I get all the local channels from well over 20 miles away from the broadcast towers on the other side of a lake. That gives me all the major broadcast stations, plus some high quality public TV stations. And, with digital cable freeing up the possibility of multiple signals on one band, I also get 24-7 news from one local broadcaster's 2nd channel, and 24-7 weather from another station's 2nd signal.

Couldn't be happier, really.

I think that your range of 20 miles is probably the most telling part of why you like it. With the analog stations, I was picking up television with 60 miles. Now, the stations 20 miles away break up pretty often.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I think that your range of 20 miles is probably the most telling part of why you like it. With the analog stations, I was picking up television with 60 miles. Now, the stations 20 miles away break up pretty often.

Hmmm.

My antenna supposedly has something like a 60-100 mile range. I haven't tried pointing it [it's not omnidirectional] at the bulk of stations in the next biggest broadcast city [about 60 miles away], but my guess is it would pick them up.

Yeah, it cuts out now and again, but given the choice between fuzzy picture and all-or-nothing picture with the rare dropout, I'll take the all-or-nothing approach. It's usually just a blip on and off, but the signal is great otherwise.

Hmmm.

[tlj009]

Yeah, it cuts out now and again, but given the choice between fuzzy picture and all-or-nothing picture with the rare dropout, I'll take the all-or-nothing approach. It's usually just a blip on and off, but the signal is great otherwise.

But that isn't really your choice from what I have seen. The difference in quality seems to be the difference between VHS tapes and DVDs. The difference matters to me very little. So the availability in my area matters a lot. The fuzzy picture with analog really correlates with no picture at all with digital. I will call the fuzzy picture an intermediate area between all or nothing. Analog has it. Digital does not.

[Gwenny]

Originally Posted by Nate

Hmmm.

My antenna supposedly has something like a 60-100 mile range. I haven't tried pointing it [it's not omnidirectional] at the bulk of stations in the next biggest broadcast city [about 60 miles away], but my guess is it would pick them up.

Yeah, it cuts out now and again, but given the choice between fuzzy picture and all-or-nothing picture with the rare dropout, I'll take the all-or-nothing approach. It's usually just a blip on and off, but the signal is great otherwise.

Hmmm.

My parent's have an aerial antenna hooked up to an amplifier, and a digital converter box. They can pick up Canadian channels over 200 miles away. They get all the Detroit channels, which is around 120 miles from us and we get Ft. Wayne and Toledo channels. They range anywhere from 60-90 channels a day depending on weather and visibility. And they pay nothing. I pay over $100 for my cable and internet and it goes in and out depending on weather as well. I tried hooking my 40" hdtv to an antenna to see if I could cut out the need for cable, but I could get 1 channel. I wish I could get rid of my cable bill altogether.

[bravesfan007]

I was able to pick up a religious station and two PBS stations when I tried using an antenna. I then tried to use a satellite dish because it would have been cheaper and provided all I need, but there were trees blocking the signal. I ended up with cable.

[metropolis4]

It's not like we're out in the boonies, we're right in Denver and we get almost nothing. With an amplified antenna we just barely get the station the Olympics are on and like 2 other stations, but only if the antenna is in just the right spot and we all sit in specific places in the room. Seriously, if I move my arm we lose reception. Sometimes if our neighbors move we lose reception. Sometimes for no reason at all we lose reception.

It's horrible. Our analog signal was about 100x stronger and more reliable. And there's no way I'm paying for cable when we don't watch TV anyway... I guess they've kinda got us where they want us out here