KG0MX
Member
Shaun said:KG0MX said:Yeah Shaun.....we're all idiots, and you're perfect.
I didn't say that you hamsexy. Don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put my foot in your arse.
Bring it on punk! Just because we all express different opinions and observances about the various systems we monitor doesn't make us all beneath you.......
To quote:
"...and I'm not entirely sure you guys follow 100% of what I'm saying."
All most folks are talking about is what they *observe* (meaning listen to those who use the systems). Some of these systems have been live for quite some time, others have not.
The premise for my position is that if you have to stand up twice (or whatever) the number of towers with digital than analog to achieve the non-crappy status you talk about, then it's not monitarily worth it to me........I pay taxes too.
Here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned...casting radiowave propogation and theory and bandwidth mathmatics and yadayadayada aside, if the trooper or firefighter on the ground has to keep repeating him or herself on a new digital system whereas they didn't have to on the older analog system, it's worthless to that user. If a local government has to spend a zillion extra dollars to stand up a zillion more towers to make it as "usable" to the user as the old system, it's worthless to that user in the scope of that user's responsibility. Most users (I'm guessing here) probably could care less about all the jazzy coolness of the technology....they just want it to work like it once did......to them. I don't think anyone would dispute that the science behind digital is considered to be superior to analog, but if one can't use the new technology as effectively (*effectively*, not efficiently) as the old technology, once again, it's worthless to that user.
So, take your digi-MOTO hyping attitude and shove *that* up your own "arse!"........rrrribbitt.