MrSpeakEZJr said:GIVE THE BOULDER SHERIFF A PAT ON THE BACK! What is that? Analog is already interoperable?
I think the distinction could be explained with the difference in site density. Sure, if DTR has 50% more towers (I don't know the exact number), of course you're going to have improved coverage. My question is, how many additional VHF sites would it have taken to achieve the same coverage? And, at what fraction of the cost of DTR? But, what do I know?letarotor said:I don't know about you'all, but I don't buy the statement on the DTRS web site that the DTRS has better coverage than the old VHF system all across the state.
What question(s) might you have and this also might be better as a new thread. Assuming you've already looked at the available state resources.sargeek said:OK Does anyone have a "Dummies Guide" to the State DTR system. I would like to find more information reguarding the system.
Again, I ask, how many additional VHF sites would it take to achieve the same (or better) results? Frankly, I think some minor tweaking of most existing VHF systems would work just as well-- for a fraction of the cost.letarotor said:50% more repeater sites, however, ought to do it!!!