POCSAG In Western New York?

[5Rya]

Anyone know of any frequencies in Western New York that broadcasts pagers that I could decode?

 

[wtp]

as far as i know it is illegal.

https://forums.radioreference.com/general-scanning-discussion/27285-pocsag-decoder-email.html
pagerwise anyway.

 

[RF-Burns]

https://forums.radioreference.com/general-scanning-discussion/27285-pocsag-decoder-email.html
pagerwise anyway.

Why is it some people in this forum feel the need to project their opinion when someone asks a question. The original poster didn't ask if it was legal, he asked if anyone​ was using it.

To answer the question of the OP, Yes a lot of hospitals still use it. With that said I'm not sure which ones still use it, I have played with it in years.

 

[wtp]

yes, i understand.

the folks with radios are a small percentage of the country
then they have to be from his area
of those, few would listen to paging.
of those only a few would know what pocsag even is or sounds like.
and to get even smaller, they would need a decoder to know that it is pocsag.
and then they would have to find this page AND want to share anything.
my guess is that would be a VERY small number
and then add to it that it is illegal.
i just think the number is close to zero.
i would just go hunting/searching with a radio as this would probably be the fastest way.
good luck hunting.

 

[foxtail]

Check the 900 range. Should bring you joy.

 

[dlwtrunked]

Why is it some people in this forum feel the need to project their opinion when someone asks a question. The original poster didn't ask if it was legal, he asked if anyone​ was using it.

To answer the question of the OP, Yes a lot of hospitals still use it. With that said I'm not sure which ones still use it, I have played with it in years.

*Most* medical paging in my area has moved over to 939/940 MHz POCSAG or FLEX rather than using their own systems.

BTW: He asked about systems he "could decode" so having posted that, someone advising him of the legality (part of the EDPA of 1986 which he may not know) was not that unreasonable. But I would strongly agree that privacy should rest with the electronic sender--putting it on receivers is naïve.