woodpecker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 729
Why do Whistler scanners have a gap between 174 and 216MHz, I know GRE did as well, will the new TRX-1 get rid of this gap?
174-216 MHz Gap Will TRX-1 Have This?
- Thread starter woodpecker
- Start date
- Status
nd5y
Member
Most scanners don't cover 174-216 because the only thing there in the US is TV channels 7-13.
prcguy
Member
woodpecker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 729
Ok, it just seems to odd to miss a block of frequency like that, there are MPT1327 trunked systems in that block in the UK.
Scanners sold on the American market are usually configured for the American Bandplan, and any restrictions (like cell-blocked). You would need to ask the manufacturer to produce a UK-banded model.
Hope this helps,
I guess that is where I have been spoiled by the scanner I have had most of my life.
A pro 2006.
It has continuous unbroken coverage from 25Mhz to 520Mhz.
And continuous unbroken coverage from 760Mhz to 1300 Mhz.
Frequency step is user selectable anywhere in that coverage range. 5,12.5 and 50Khz
And reception mode is user selectable anywhere in that range, and on any programmed channel.AM, FM, and wide FM.
When I have looked at scanners on the market today, I haven’t been able to find anything comparable. The designer appears to be dead set on deciding for you as to which frequencies you should be wanting to listen to, and as to what the frequency step and mode shale be.
My opinion is that most scanners on the market today are so restricted in their coverage, and functionality in that coverage range, that they are basically unusable. It’s not their job to decide for me as to what I want to search for, that’s my job.
About the only receivers available today that will match the pro 2006 coverage, and capability are communications receivers that cost thousands of dollars.
A pro 2006.
It has continuous unbroken coverage from 25Mhz to 520Mhz.
And continuous unbroken coverage from 760Mhz to 1300 Mhz.
Frequency step is user selectable anywhere in that coverage range. 5,12.5 and 50Khz
And reception mode is user selectable anywhere in that range, and on any programmed channel.AM, FM, and wide FM.
When I have looked at scanners on the market today, I haven’t been able to find anything comparable. The designer appears to be dead set on deciding for you as to which frequencies you should be wanting to listen to, and as to what the frequency step and mode shale be.
My opinion is that most scanners on the market today are so restricted in their coverage, and functionality in that coverage range, that they are basically unusable. It’s not their job to decide for me as to what I want to search for, that’s my job.
About the only receivers available today that will match the pro 2006 coverage, and capability are communications receivers that cost thousands of dollars.
BCD996XT/BCD996P2 have nearly the same coverage as the PRO-2006 (minus the statutory requirement to block the old cellular bands).
- 25.0000 - 512.0000 MHz
- 758.0000 - 823.9875 MHz
- 849.0125 - 868.9875 MHz
- 894.0125 - 960.0000 MHz
- 960.0125 - 1239.9875 <--Not Included in BCD996XT
- 1240.0000 - 1300.0000 MHz
Why do we still have that restriction? It is completely academic now.
I've met with the office of the Chairman of the FCC on this matter twice, now on this matter.
You need to write your Congressman.
You need to write your Congressman.
Hello,
Because Congress enshrined the requirement into law, so Congress will have to pass a bill to change the law, and the president has to sign it.
73 Eric
woodpecker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 729
Actually, we feel differently (regarding Congress needing to change the law), but FCC disagrees.
The law tells the FCC to take the steps necessary to block cellular reception by scanners (hugely paraphrased, here).
The FCC could re-regulate to clarify that reception means both tuning to and rendering voice from the signal (and this is not an uncommon meaning of reception).
Existing cellular activity is a) entirely digital; b) encrypted from handset to tower; and c) mostly in bands other than the band we are required by regulation to block.
You can somewhat thank Edward Snowden for the FCC not wanting to touch this (imagine changing a regulation that has the appearance, if not the effect, of making mobile phone calls easier to intercept).
The law tells the FCC to take the steps necessary to block cellular reception by scanners (hugely paraphrased, here).
The FCC could re-regulate to clarify that reception means both tuning to and rendering voice from the signal (and this is not an uncommon meaning of reception).
Existing cellular activity is a) entirely digital; b) encrypted from handset to tower; and c) mostly in bands other than the band we are required by regulation to block.
You can somewhat thank Edward Snowden for the FCC not wanting to touch this (imagine changing a regulation that has the appearance, if not the effect, of making mobile phone calls easier to intercept).
kc2kth
Member
At this point does it cost more to manufacture a scanner because the cell band must be excluded or doesn't it really make a difference? With all of the new functionality in the current generation of radios I can't see something like excluding that range being difficult or an expensive feature to maintain. It seems a lot more effort - and therefore the lion's share of the cost - would be tied to these new features. If it were a significant factor I'd completely support trying to get that law rewritten. If however modern scanners procs already have the logic baked in to never tune these it probably doesn't make a difference.
I too relied on my PRO-2005 for years, purchasing it just ahead of the release 2006 since we didn't know what was likely to change. I really liked the idea of complete coverage from 150 kHz to 1300 MHz (between the 2005 and my DX440) right at my fingertips.
I too relied on my PRO-2005 for years, purchasing it just ahead of the release 2006 since we didn't know what was likely to change. I really liked the idea of complete coverage from 150 kHz to 1300 MHz (between the 2005 and my DX440) right at my fingertips.
Besides what UPMan has already said, have you ever tried to "un-pass" a law?
Remember, income tax was supposed to be a temporary war measure.
Besides what UPMan has already said, have you ever tried to "un-pass" a law?
Remember, income tax was supposed to be a temporary war measure.
Also remember that in 1898 the US government imposed a 3% excise tax on all long-distance telephone calls (which in 1898 was probably anywhere outside the city limits!). The purpose of the tax was to finance the cost of the Spanish-American War. Well, the war ended the next year in 1899, but the gov't did not stop collecting the tax until 2006. Source: USATODAY.com - Feds cut off phone tax after 108 years
The point is that the executive branch has substantial flexibility in how they comply with the law. The prudent approach is to make the action of listening to the voice or decoding the data into a usable fashion illegal (so that someone listening can be criminally charged). But, even that law would be foolish because recording laws already require at least 1 party consent, so it's already covered under longstanding wiretapping laws. Forcing American receiver manufacturers to block certain band spectrums and make their hardware so the receiver can't be modified is incredibly foolish. Anyone who really wants to listen to the cell voice traffic will do so despite the handcuffs on the receiver marketers. Sure, maybe it keeps the naive or ignorant (i.e. kids) from listening, but education would be a better approach for preventing that demographic from listening to cell phone calls. Frankly, it's all foolish anyways since an untold number of government agents and contractors can listen.
The FCC could modify their rules, but they aren't going to spend the time or political capital to benefit a group that they deem to be small and insignificant. Uniden isn't a big enough lobbyist, and you aren't a big enough donor. I am not sure which congressman might have any sway or interest in the FCC.
This is just another reason why regulations are bad. No matter how well intended, they hardly ever solve the problem they were designed to prevent, and they almost always punish certain individuals and industries (and, by the way, the diminished societal welfare makes almost ALL of us marginally worse off). This is demonstrated by the fact that someone can buy a receiver for less than $10 from China and receive the same bands that an 'evil corporation'in America is forced to block. Nothing practical is accomplished, yet it is a huge cost to American companies, the American job market, and our economy.
And despite what the hardware costs may or may not be (I bet it actually is more expensive to produce, and legal overhead must also be considered), there are additional costs to the corporation due to complying with the regulation. For example, as mentioned here, the product is not as competitive overseas since other receivers cover bands that are valuable elsewhere but illegal in the U.S. This means that not as many units are sold, and we end up paying more. Fewer people are employed in this country because of this regulation. Additionally, end users are worse off too. A lot of people like receiving the aircraft signals in the ranges not carried by the Uniden scanner. Sure, I suppose they could add those in, but, apparently, with the cell band regulations, it just didn't make financial sense. Meanwhile, someone has to buy an extra receiver to hear 1090gHz, for example.
Addition: The current regulation is the equivalent of banning all speakers manufactured or marketed in the U.S. because someone might use the speaker to open a copper telephone line pedestal and listen to someone's phone conversation. Should we ban all speakers?
Huge thanks to UPMan for going to Washington to work on correcting bad policy. When was the last time the rest of you went to a public meeting, corresponded with an elected official, or met with a government administrator?
The FCC could modify their rules, but they aren't going to spend the time or political capital to benefit a group that they deem to be small and insignificant. Uniden isn't a big enough lobbyist, and you aren't a big enough donor. I am not sure which congressman might have any sway or interest in the FCC.
This is just another reason why regulations are bad. No matter how well intended, they hardly ever solve the problem they were designed to prevent, and they almost always punish certain individuals and industries (and, by the way, the diminished societal welfare makes almost ALL of us marginally worse off). This is demonstrated by the fact that someone can buy a receiver for less than $10 from China and receive the same bands that an 'evil corporation'in America is forced to block. Nothing practical is accomplished, yet it is a huge cost to American companies, the American job market, and our economy.
And despite what the hardware costs may or may not be (I bet it actually is more expensive to produce, and legal overhead must also be considered), there are additional costs to the corporation due to complying with the regulation. For example, as mentioned here, the product is not as competitive overseas since other receivers cover bands that are valuable elsewhere but illegal in the U.S. This means that not as many units are sold, and we end up paying more. Fewer people are employed in this country because of this regulation. Additionally, end users are worse off too. A lot of people like receiving the aircraft signals in the ranges not carried by the Uniden scanner. Sure, I suppose they could add those in, but, apparently, with the cell band regulations, it just didn't make financial sense. Meanwhile, someone has to buy an extra receiver to hear 1090gHz, for example.
Addition: The current regulation is the equivalent of banning all speakers manufactured or marketed in the U.S. because someone might use the speaker to open a copper telephone line pedestal and listen to someone's phone conversation. Should we ban all speakers?
Huge thanks to UPMan for going to Washington to work on correcting bad policy. When was the last time the rest of you went to a public meeting, corresponded with an elected official, or met with a government administrator?
Last edited:
K2RNI
Member
SDRs are plenty cheap nowadays. Just get whatever scanner you like and get something like an RTL or AirSpy to fill in the gaps. No cell blocks or discriminator taps needed.
- Status
