1.5 Ghz would cause far more signal loss, depending on terrain. It would be very impractical- not to mention the cost of retuning/replacing millions of dollars of equipment worldwide. The upgrade to better efficiency is not ideal, and is a step in the right direction towards better efficiency, however it is a wasted one since in a few years the FCC will probably issue a second narrowbanding mandate, moving to 6.25.
If this move is about safety of first responders why not move them to 1.5Ghz or higher. For most folks there is nothing wrong with the way things are now. The big winners will be the two way radio companies.
1.5 Ghz would cause far more signal loss, depending on terrain. It would be very impractical- not to mention the cost of retuning/replacing millions of dollars of equipment worldwide. The upgrade to better efficiency is not ideal, and is a step in the right direction towards better efficiency, however it is a wasted one since in a few years the FCC will probably issue a second narrowbanding mandate, moving to 6.25.
kmilfort 2 months ago
If this move is about safety of first responders why not move them to 1.5Ghz or higher. For most folks there is nothing wrong with the way things are now. The big winners will be the two way radio companies.
1eyeontheworld 2 months ago
I hope NO lives will be lost, that is why it is so imperative that we as communication personnel MUST train our people to a higher standard.
rsmith779 7 months ago
we use 12.5khz in europe its fine we would never use 25khz no point, also 12.5 works farer than 25khz thats a fact
BlackGoldEstates 1 year ago