Even though it is not a requirement here in CT, I have a narrowband 
(12.5 Kc) FM repeater on the air (that has been narrow for almost 3 
years now).  What I have noticed is that ham rigs can do narrowband and 
DPL more and more (the first one I had that was capable of narrow band 
was purchased around the year 2000 or a little before).  Most any ham 
rig out there now seems to be able to handle narrow operations.  The 
only thing I have noticed is that with the exception of the Kenwood 
TM-271A, there does not appear to be a ham rig that can do 2.5 KHz 
channel steps without getting into the HF/VHF/UHF class radios like the 
FT-847 and TS-2000.

    Lastly, I am surprised at how many people access the narrowband 
repeater and do it correctly.  In the beginning we did have several 
people trying to access it in wideband mode.  The other nice thing about 
doing narrowband on the repeater is that with the 15 KHz channel spacing 
here in CT, I do not get any crap from adjacent channel repeater users 
that I have ever noticed ... just some crap from the tower in the wind 
:)  If anyone is ever in the area and wants to play ... it is on 146.955 
with a DPL of 343 (in and out), and is linked to 5 other repeaters in 
the system.  Many have said that it has better audio than the wideband 
stuff that I have on the air, and I do not use "X-pand" or 
compandering.  The repeater is located in Morris/Bethlehem CT and covers 
to the north/northeast (so that would be up towards Hartford and north) 
better than any other direction.

James WJ1D



MCH wrote:
> Yea - like the majority of hams are going to buy replacement rigs, or 
> (trying not to burst a seam) modify their rigs for SNFM!
>
> These are the folks who can't even install a CTCSS encoder if their life 
> depending on it!
>
> Yea - narrowbanding is going to be a real big deal in the ham bands.
>
> Besides, D-STAR policies have been in place in most areas for quite some 
> time, now, and they are very similar to SNFM.
>
> I know WPA has rules for narrowband systems in place.
>
> Joe M.
>   
>

Reply via email to