evilbunny wrote: > Hello Patrick, > > You've made some very interesting, and good points, but 1 thing I > disagree on is that most end users will use amps given the chance, > personally the high cost of them is prohibitive, after user forks out > money for wireless devices, coax, and antenna they usually can't > justify buying an amp, I'm glad they usually aren't cheap as that > would encourage more take up of them. I actually wish there was some > kind of tax on them to increase the price making them even less cost > effective means of increasing signal. Most installations I've found > locally that have high output signals (most I can only guess would > have more interference on themselves as well as anyone else) are run > by commercial operators, such as car lots (why they have them, and > boosted is anyones guess).
Guess #1: 2.4Ghz, Wireless Video Security Systems. Guess #2 (related to #1): .5 to 1Watt 2.4Ghz Wireless Video Amps are typically $50-100 and sold all over the place in video security magazines which are distributed to thousands of non-tech savvy people who just see it and buy it with no concern about how it works or why they may or may not need an amp. Surprised at how many TV Amp's you can find at Radio Shack, in comparison to how often they are really needed or really useful? Every store around here has them, but 99% of the residents around here don't need them and end up with more noise because of them if they do install them. When the market demand is there, someone is there to fulfill that demand. -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
