3 ms·
Honestly curious: how many of those satellite dead-zones have good radio coverage? In my various times driving places, I've often lost radio signal in a suffici
by MostlyStable 11mo ago
Honestly curious: how many of those satellite dead-zones have good radio coverage? In my various times driving places, I've often lost radio signal in a sufficiently remote place where I 100% would have had satellite coverage. Those same features that can block satellite will also block (some kinds of) radio, if you don't have a broadcast tower at the top of the ridge or something.
Yes, I agree that satellite coverage is not 100%. But neither is radio.
- woodruffw 11mo agoIt's definitely a mixed bag, but the areas I'm thinking of have decent FM radio coverage (from local stations that affiliate with public radio). AM coverage tends to be good regardless. I've had the same experience as you around remote places, but those places were generally the flat-and-desolate kind :-)
- slumberlust 11mo agoMost towns have the repeater(s). They are cheap and easy to maintain.
- xp84 11mo agoI think the idea is that the sats relay a signal to radio stations including remote ones. It's the radio stations who are in charge of situating their reception equipment where it can see the sat, and also for figuring out how to best broadcast to their served area (e.g. AM and/or FM? Tower height, power, setting up some translator stations on a different frequency to serve outlying areas, giving the feed to local cable systems to be sent with TV service, etc.)