Thought I would pass this along.......Our EOC just purchased some Icom (8) channel UHF and VHF mobiles. (Also come in 128 ch.). They are PC programmable, and selectable WIDE/NARROW per channel. Cost about $275 ea. A real solid commercial rig. I can get mod.# if interested.
Tim W7TRH/AFA0TP --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Cort Buffington <c...@...> wrote: > > No monobanders outside of 2M left except Alinco. I tried to ask > Kenwood about the TM471, Yaesu about some of theirs (they still have a > 440 monoband HT), and didn't bother with ICOM since it would just be a > $700 radio made for D*. The answer was the same -- no market for it in > the US, though they make these radios for other markets. > > the only way to get those other bands are a multi-bander or Alinco. > I'm not a huge fan of Alinco, but I did recently buy a pair of DJ-G7s > mainly to get the 1.2GHz. My general experience is that the multi- > banders aren't build to take quite as much abuse, don't have quite the > audio, usually have DC-light receivers with lousier selectivity -- > hey, you gotta trade something off. That's why I use mostly commercial > gear and UHF only. If I could buy ham rigs for UHF only, I probably > would. > > BTW: The repeaters are all Motorola commercial too. MSR2000 and R1225 > (10w running at 1w with a TPL 100W PA), GM300s for link receivers, > barefoot 10W R1225s for remotes. This is repeater builder, so I > thought I should throw that in there :) Nothing against other brands, > just have a lot of time spent getting to know the big /\/\ > > 73 DE N0MJS > > On Oct 2, 2009, at 8:09 PM, MCH wrote: > > > Exactly. It comes back to the mentality that 2M is the only VHF/UHF > > band > > out there. What the ARRL needs to do is figure out a way to make hams > > realize that 2M is not the only VHF/UHF band. > > > > What it really comes down to is that hams are CHEAP and multiband > > radios > > cost money (but not twice as much for twice the bands - the additional > > expense is an inverse log - 2 bands = 50% more, 3=66% more, Etc.). > > It's > > a wonder we don't see more single-band HF radios. I apologize for > > those > > who are shocked my this truth or by the fact I was brave enough to > > TYPE it. > > > > Maybe the ARRL needs to convince manufacturers to make more radios > > with > > multi-band capability so the price will come down so more hams will > > buy > > them. > > > > In WPA there are 3 repeaters on 900 MHz. Actually, there are 2 > > coordinated, and 1 that is planned - I'm not sure if any are > > actually on > > the air. > > > > Again, there are plenty of pairs available in my area for narrowband > > repeaters. If they only argument is the fact that the 2M repeater > > sub-bands are full, then petition the FCC to expand the 2M band. Maybe > > give us 148.2-150 MHz and make it a narrowband transmission only band. > > > > But forcing repeaters off the air is not a smart thing to do - > > especially when you have users who will be forced to use a lesser > > number > > of repeaters rather than buy new, more expensive, equipment. (cheap, > > remember?) > > > > If the FCC would allow repeater use of the 144.4-144.5 MHz segment, > > that > > could be paired with 144.9 - 145.0 MHz that has been largely abandoned > > by packet users and is already repeater-legal. There you go - 9 pairs > > ready to be used for SNFM operations that will not impact the > > current users. > > > > Of course, the overcrowding argument is a good one, too. I doubt you > > will be able to prove that given the state most repeaters are in (that > > being the IDLE state). I've also not seen one OOB repeater on the air. > > > > Oh, and where will all this 10M and 6M repeater equipment come from? > > The > > commercial users don't have it for Low Band. 900 MHz is already > > narrowband for the most part. Where are all these people who want to > > put > > narrowband repeaters on the air? (reference my maybe 1 planned > > repeater > > in WPA comment) > > > > Joe M. > > > > Mark wrote: > > > This is one reason why I have a 900 MHz machine on the air, Joe. > > Plus, it > > > is "narrowband-capable" already! <grin> > > > > > > Seriously, my main concern (as well as another ham north of me who > > also has > > > a 900 machine) is how to get some users! It sits for hours at a time > > > without activity. (Other than me calling out "listening" or having > > the > > > occasional rag chew with one of the three other users.) If only I > > knew how > > > to generate more interest in 900 MHz without *ME* having to foot > > the bill > > > for everyone else's radios... Of course, I'm open to suggestions - > > or > > > donations! > > > > > > 73, > > > Mark - N9WYS > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of MCH > > > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 3:37 PM > > > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] ARRL Approves Study Committee to > > Research & > > > Develop Plan for Narrowband Channel Spacing > > > > > > I bet there are few places that have every pair used in every > > band. It's > > > likely more an issue of the fact that everyone *has* to be on 2M and > > > nowhere else. Pandering to these types will only result in the > > LOSS of > > > the other VHF/UHF bands. > > > > > > And have they through about how to pay for everyone to get a new > > radio? > > > Will there be a government bailout so all the hams (many who can't > > > afford a used radio) can buy new compatible gear? > > > > > > Joe M. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: > > 07/31/09 05:58:00 > > > > > >
