Drowsiness
Member
Cool story, bro.
Home Patrol / The cost thread...
- Thread starter b52hbuff
- Start date
- Status
Cool story, bro.
msradell
Member
Part of the problem is that you have a PSR500 say you're really not part of the target market. The target market is people who do not have scanners because of the complexity of the ones on the market today. Buying a HP1 no matter what the cost would not allow you to listen to anything you can't already listen to so really it would be more or less a toy for you. But people who will buy it probably don't have a scanner have any type so this would give them capability to listen to something they presently can't.
ButchGone
Member
Good grief children, time for your nap!
BG..
BG..
I will not be purchaseing one either. No more 500.00 scanners for me done bought the last 2 the Uniden 996 and 996xt. i will save my 500.00 and buy another ham radio at least I can talk on it. These 500.00 scanners are starting to be a joke! The HP1 looks like to be nothing but a toy! Sorry guys but had to give my opinion I only read the forums once a week and for the last month all I see is HP1 this and that. Who gives a crap!
So it's apparently a hot topic on the forum and with its users!
Well, if that's all you keep seeing come up, and that's what thread you decided to post in, then...
FWIW,
Uniden HomePatrol Scanner -Grove Ent.
Uniden HomePatrol Scanner at
Uniden HomePatrol Scanner
$499.95
Uniden HomePatrol Scanner -Grove Ent.
Uniden HomePatrol Scanner at
Uniden HomePatrol Scanner
$499.95
I was hoping they would be a bit less expensive, but I'll probably buy one anyway.
Location Based Scanning (LBS) via GPS on the 396/996XT is the way to go. The only thing that needs to happen to make Home Patrol and LBS better is the RR database needs to be cleaned up. Everything from GPS coordinates to Conventional Freqs. If someone pays a premium for Home Patrol and then enters a zip code and the database still contains errors, there will be disappointment. I sometimes find issues with RR info when traveling. Luckily I can recover searching and close calling, etc. The target group of Home Patrol isn't going to tolerate that. However, they might not know what they're missing unless that have their Home Patrol next to someone with a traditional scanner that has fixed the RR errors. I'm not trying to hijack this thread. I'm just saying that the price of Home Patrol is only one piece of its success. It success also depends on its programming source. The users of Home Patrol that shell out the money want only one thing. IT BETTER WORK OUT OF THE BOX!!! Functionality=Value=Price Justification
Drowsiness
Member
Not until I've had my juice!
Marshall, I can say so far preorders have been good and about what I expect with about 6 weeks before launch.
Awesome News Jeff, thanks for sharing! I am really hoping the HP1 is a hit for many reasons, not the least is so that dedicated radio retail stores like yours makes some profit.
Happy Monitoring (and HP'ing)
Marshall KE4ZNR
N4ADE
Member
what about having the repeaters programmed in to it for the ham guys?
andyishere
Member
When I went through the Demo to see what I would Receive, it told me I would get my City. Which is IMPOSSIBLE, they are Provoice IMBE Digital... So if it can pick this up, which is probably can't, do you think a lot of people in my area will try to get one?
Springfield Ohio
Springfield Ohio
The reason it is telling you that is because of the information in the RR database. You are correct that it will not do Provoice. However, if the frequency and talkgroup data exists within the database for a system using something like Provoice or Open Sky, etc., it will show up in the HP-1. It is only a reflection of what is contained in the database, but does't mean the HP-1 can decode any additional digital protocols than what the current crop of digital scanners can. I am sure you understood that based on your comments, but I thought I would try to clarify the point for those that might get the wrong impression.
I think that is incorrect. That's just the sample web database, which UPMan said is being revised. But those frequencies won't show up on the HP1.
If you are correct, then my apologies. Last thing I want to do is lead people astray. Especially when it comes to the HP-1, which has already generated enough heated debate without my help! I was totally under the impression that if it shows up in the RR database, then it would be in the HP-1 (when it's released). If not, then is someone at Uniden going to go through every system in the country and when present, remove information pertaining to protocols that the HP-1 cannot decode? That seems like a large undertaking. That being said, I have no idea how many such examples exist in the database at this point. When Paul said they were revising the database for the HP-1, I took it to mean they were working to make it mirror what the RR database contains at a given point in time.
No. The database won't ingest freq's with a tag like "TRBO" or digital EDACS.
Well then, I stand corrected. And actually, happily so. I am glad they are going to be proactive in weeding out the unnecessary data with regards to the HP-1. There is a tremendous amount of data in there, and by trimming the fat, so to speak, that will certainly help keep down the confusion level about what the unit can and cannot do.
And not to derail the thread - but this is only about the "cost" of the radio. Discussions of its features / requests / etc. should be in the feature thread if you want more details.
- Status
