Letters
‘Many new systems are less reliable than the systems they replaced’
As a “ham” and former EMT, I have been an MRT reader since its inaugural issue in the early 1980s, and have been involved with radio since the mid-70s. I would like to thank you for having the courage to write, “The times of lower frequencies and glowing tubes” (In Sync, August 2001) and to publish Mr. Dunford’s article, “Interoperability Simplified” (Public Safety ‘10-2’, August 2001).
Both articles bring home the point that newer is not necessarily better. Around the country, there have been reports of new, extremely high-tech (not to mention extremely expensive) radio systems that perform poorly and are very complicated to operate. While higher frequencies may provide greater channelization, range is often compromised. Worse, many people in government and public safety appear pressured by manufacturers and others to buy “the latest and greatest.” The average police officer, firefighter or EMT needs the ability to stay in touch with dispatch and colleagues, and most importantly, to request assistance in an emergency. Many new systems are less reliable than the systems they replaced, due to complexity and propagation characteristics. To these users, radios are tools to facilitate their work, in the same way they use sidearms or rescue equipment. They are not an end to themselves.
Also, simple VHF networks and mutual aid channels, such as those received easily on Mr. Dunford’s “lowly scanner,” can literally be lifesavers. Radios on these bands provide good range, ease of use and low cost. There are numerous instances throughout the country where the “old radios” allowed communication, especially between agencies and jurisdictions, when the 800MHz digital did not.
Thank you to you and your magazine for continuing to tell the complete story.
Gregg Danzer
Pleasant Garden, NC
For more letters, go to MRT‘s Web site and click on “Letters from Readers” (under “Site Features”)