I didn’t even realize Qualcomm removed the built in FM radio from their chips. Huh.

  • Virtual Insanity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    It’s not that straight forward. And in a practical sense 162MHz is hardly significantly higher than 100MHz.

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      Apologies, I accidentally missed off the end of the quote, the bit I was commenting on:

      The signals are broadcasted on 162.400 – 162.550 MHz, above the FM band, allowing the signals to travel much farther than regular radio or cell networks.

      I agree that it isn’t much different. However it is objectively worse than regular FM radio, not better as the article claimed.

      • Virtual Insanity
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I still disagree. There are far more significant factors than the frequency.

        Longer wavelength isn’t an instant blanket solution to better propogation.

        Factors like typical transmitter and receiver configurations matter, location matters, object density matters, reflections etc… etc…

        Hence why UHF is preferred in some cases by emergency services and so on.

        Ultimately anything above 60MHz is going to be line of sight or a reflection when assuming the receiving station is mobile or portable, and in that case if the user is indoors higher frequencies might reflect better.

        Also narrow FM has more power density than wide FM for the same power level, hence why broadcast transmitters need to be so incredibly powerful to get anywhere.