Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Neil McKie]

  Very well said, Nate, 

  Neil - WA6KLA 


Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
> Jim B. wrote:
> 
> >Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all day with chatter
> >isn't available for emergency communications. Plus the more time it
> >spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.
> >
> >
> Dang... I better go turn my alarm clock off so I can save it for a day
> when I really need to get up in the morning.
> 
> Or maybe I better go tell the local RBOC switch guys that they can't
> provide 911 service through a busy #5ESS... all those electrons flowing
> from the normal phone calls might wear it out!
> 
> Or maybe I should tell the police and fire dispatchers to "save" their
> repeaters for a really bad day?
> 
> LOL... I hope you were joking, because that was a really funny
> statement.  If it wasn't intended as a joke, it was supremely ignorant
> of how electronics work... design the thing for 100% duty cycle and
> forget about how much traffic it gets, designed right -- it doesn't
> matter in the slightest how much activity it gets.
> 
> Nate Duehr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - WY0X
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Nate Duehr]

Jim B. wrote:

>Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all day with chatter 
>isn't available for emergency communications. Plus the more time it 
>spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.
>  
>
Dang... I better go turn my alarm clock off so I can save it for a day 
when I really need to get up in the morning.

Or maybe I better go tell the local RBOC switch guys that they can't 
provide 911 service through a busy #5ESS... all those electrons flowing 
from the normal phone calls might wear it out!

Or maybe I should tell the police and fire dispatchers to "save" their 
repeaters for a really bad day?

LOL... I hope you were joking, because that was a really funny 
statement.  If it wasn't intended as a joke, it was supremely ignorant 
of how electronics work... design the thing for 100% duty cycle and 
forget about how much traffic it gets, designed right -- it doesn't 
matter in the slightest how much activity it gets.

Nate Duehr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - WY0X




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Q]

> Jim B. wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all day with chatter
> > isn't available for emergency communications. Plus the more time it
> > spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.

 This is an asenine statement,if the repeater is in heavy use,you know for
sure that its in good working order,you have a pool of available operators
and it will probably handle anything you can throw at it. You cannot go thru
life wearing blinders,the repeater serves many roles,including drive time
chit-chat,late night bs sessions and emergency traffic. Now tell me your
home phone is reserved for only emergencies and you never shoot the breeze
on it? WAKE UP MAN!






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[mch]

Hmmm... using that logic, you can have the most reliable repeater by not
putting it on the air at all. That way, it will last forever. :-)
(provided it's not using tubes)

Actually, I would tend to think that like us, periodic exercise isn't a
bad thing for a repeater. It will help keep the caps trim and the
transistors fit.

Although I admittedly don't have any proof for that theory.

Joe M.

Jim B. wrote:
> 
> Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all day with chatter
> isn't available for emergency communications. Plus the more time it
> spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Joe Montierth]

--- "Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all
> day with chatter 
> isn't available for emergency communications. Plus
> the more time it 
> spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Barbour
> WD8CHL
> 
> 
> Fred Flowers wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, but does anybody talk on all of them?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>From: "Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers
> Auxiliary Operation on 2M!
> >>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0400
> >>
> >>Joe Montierth wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>In many parts of the US the 2M band is
> under-utilized,
> >>>so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If
> everyone
> >>>used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
> >>>problems, but I can see how people feel about
> this
> >>>based on their local conditions.
> >>>
> >>>Joe
> >>>
> >>>Joe
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea
> that 2M is
> >>'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US),
> there's plenty of
> >>repeaters. Most areas there's too many!
> >>
> >>--
> >>Jim Barbour
> >>WD8CHL
> >>

A couple of comments:

1. If I had an emergency, I would go to the channel
with the chatter on it, because that's where the
people are, and thats where you'll get a response. It
does no good to yell your brains out for help on a
"quiet" channel, if no one's there to answer you.

Also, as far as an unused repeater being less subject
to failure, this is just not true. A well designed
repeater will not "wear out" do to heavy use, ask
anyone on this board who runs a well designed system.
They're not afraid of people using it, or seeing it
keyed for hours at a time. If you had to have a
message hand delivered to someone two miles away,
would you give it to the "couch potato" or the
marathon runner? The couch potato should be all rested
and ready to run that 2 miles, and the marathon man
should be too worn out from his miles of practice in
the last few weeks. But reality tells us it's no sweat
for one of them, and a major challenge for the other.

2. One area where 2M is underutilized is here where I
live. I can hit 3 2M repeaters with a handheld, and
maybe 10 more with a good base. This is typical
throughout our county and neighboring counties. Our
county is the size of Connecticut. This is very
typical of the rural western states.

3. Repeaters aren't all there are on 2M. With the
normal bandplans being used today, there are at least
45 channels available for simplex use, exclusive of
any repeater input or output. Even if half these
channels were being used in any given area, that would
still mean over 20 vacant channels for new usage. In
most areas, over 90% of the simplex channels are
vacant 90% of the time.

4. In reality, the 2M repeater output channels that
were out of range from a certain location could be
used by aux type systems, with no interference caused
or received. The use of PL and/or DTMF or other codes
could further reduce this.

Joe




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Neil McKie]

  I agree Larry, very true. 

  Neil - WA6KLA 

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> 
> Plenty of Repeaters, but lots fewer users. Most repeaters are quiet
> compared to just a few years ago. Take a listen on 2-Meters - Los Angeles,
> Seattle, Boston, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas. Anywhere.
> LJ
> 
> Original Message:
> -
> From: Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0400
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!
> 
> Joe Montierth wrote:
> 
> >
> > In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
> > so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
> > used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
> > problems, but I can see how people feel about this
> > based on their local conditions.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > Joe
> >
> 
> I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea that 2M is
> 'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US), there's plenty of
> repeaters. Most areas there's too many!
> 
> --
> Jim Barbour
> WD8CHL
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Plenty of Repeaters, but lots fewer users. Most repeaters are quiet
compared to just a few years ago. Take a listen on 2-Meters - Los Angeles,
Seattle, Boston, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas. Anywhere. 
LJ


Original Message:
-
From: Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0400
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!


Joe Montierth wrote:


> 
> In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
> so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
> used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
> problems, but I can see how people feel about this
> based on their local conditions.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Joe
> 

I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea that 2M is 
'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US), there's plenty of 
repeaters. Most areas there's too many!

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL





 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Jim B.]

Doesn't matter-in fact a repeater that's tied up all day with chatter 
isn't available for emergency communications. Plus the more time it 
spends keyed up, the less time till something fails.

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL


Fred Flowers wrote:

> Yeah, but does anybody talk on all of them?
> 
> 
> 
>>From: "Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!
>>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0400
>>
>>Joe Montierth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
>>>so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
>>>used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
>>>problems, but I can see how people feel about this
>>>based on their local conditions.
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>
>>I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea that 2M is
>>'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US), there's plenty of
>>repeaters. Most areas there's too many!
>>
>>--
>>Jim Barbour
>>WD8CHL
>>





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Mike Perryman]

The Desert South-West can get pretty sparse on repeaters... people as well..

mike

At 04:01 PM 04/16/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Joe Montierth wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
> > so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
> > used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
> > problems, but I can see how people feel about this
> > based on their local conditions.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea that 2M is
>'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US), there's plenty of
>repeaters. Most areas there's too many!
>
>--
>Jim Barbour
>WD8CHL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-
   Mike PerrymanCavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc.
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Consulting Engineers
   http://www.cmdconsulting.com 7839 Ashton Avenue
   K5JMPManassas, VA 20109   USA
   (703) 392-9090; (703) 392-9559 fax;  DC Line (202) 332-0110
- 





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Fred Flowers]

Yeah, but does anybody talk on all of them?


>From: "Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!
>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0400
>
>Joe Montierth wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
> > so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
> > used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
> > problems, but I can see how people feel about this
> > based on their local conditions.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea that 2M is
>'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US), there's plenty of
>repeaters. Most areas there's too many!
>
>--
>Jim Barbour
>WD8CHL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

_
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Jim B.]

Joe Montierth wrote:


> 
> In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
> so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
> used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
> problems, but I can see how people feel about this
> based on their local conditions.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Joe
> 

I'd sure like to know where you're gettin the idea that 2M is 
'underutilized'! Everywhere I've been (in the US), there's plenty of 
repeaters. Most areas there's too many!

-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[mch]

Good point. I didn't think about the 'input' aspect of the matter.

Any word yet on those boards?  :-)

Joe M.

Joe Montierth wrote:
> 
> Most HF bands do not support repeater operation, in
> fact the only HF band allowing repeater operation is
> the upper part of 10M.
> 
> So if you "repeat" audio coming from an HF source, you
> can't do it as a repeater (with the above exception).
> You can do it as an aux station, since they don't fall
> under repeater rules or sub-bands.





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Joe Montierth]

--- mch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of course, the FIFTH side of the coin (how many
> sides does this darn
> coin have???) :-) is that there is no real control
> going on on 2M using
> the SkyCommand II system. All the control IS done on
> 440 MHz. The
> frequency changes and command confirmations - BOTH
> WAYS - are
> transmitted on 440. The ONLY use for the 2M side is
> retransmission of
> the HF audio back to the remote unit. Many have
> argued that this is not
> Auxiliary operation. In fact, what differentiates
> this type of operation
> from repeater operation? (a rhetorical question that
> need not be debated
> on this list) The FCC argued that only the face that
> confirmation of the
> commands was received on 2M due to the presence of
> the audio on the new
> frequency, yet the 440 confirmation telemetry has
> already confirmed the
> changes. So, what is the 2M side giving you other
> than repeated HF
> audio? Nothing!
> 

Most HF bands do not support repeater operation, in
fact the only HF band allowing repeater operation is
the upper part of 10M.

So if you "repeat" audio coming from an HF source, you
can't do it as a repeater (with the above exception).
You can do it as an aux station, since they don't fall
under repeater rules or sub-bands.

In many parts of the US the 2M band is under-utilized,
so I am not opposed to the idea, per-se. If everyone
used good common sense, there shouldn't be many
problems, but I can see how people feel about this
based on their local conditions.

Joe

Joe




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[mch]

While I would agree with that assessment, I too have stated on the
appropriate groups that KW should have included 220 and this entire
issue would be a moot point. Why didn't they? Because the 200 band isn't
a ham band in most of the world. However, if they could even provide for
receive only there (which they do, but not with SC), this would be a
non-issue, as both the TX and RX links would be above 222.15 MHz.

Another side of the coin is that there are no HTs that support a 220/440
version of SC. So, what good is a mode you can't use with your dual-band
HT?

The THIRD side of the coin is this: Kenwood HAS an HT that will work
with SC on 440/1.2G, but they don't WANT to sell it in the USA. Again,
all the AUX arguments become moot using 440/1.2G. And the kicker? The
TS-2000X - one of the main radios that support SC, WON'T LET YOU use
440/1.2G even though the 1.2G module is there! They ONLY support 2M/440!

Now, on the fourth side of the coin is this: While 2M may be heavily
used in some areas of the USA, it has become quite dormant in most. You
know what they say... use it or lose it. Why not let some AUX operations
there? I don't agree with allowing permanent links (such as repeater
links) there, but there is no reason not to allow itinerant remote
control of HF stations there. I know someone who was doing this back in
the 80s. What is the difference between cross-band repeat and Auxiliary
operation? With the latter, you can change the retransmitted frequency.
Is this reason enough to not allow much operation? Because you have more
control over it?

Of course, the FIFTH side of the coin (how many sides does this darn
coin have???) :-) is that there is no real control going on on 2M using
the SkyCommand II system. All the control IS done on 440 MHz. The
frequency changes and command confirmations - BOTH WAYS - are
transmitted on 440. The ONLY use for the 2M side is retransmission of
the HF audio back to the remote unit. Many have argued that this is not
Auxiliary operation. In fact, what differentiates this type of operation
from repeater operation? (a rhetorical question that need not be debated
on this list) The FCC argued that only the face that confirmation of the
commands was received on 2M due to the presence of the audio on the new
frequency, yet the 440 confirmation telemetry has already confirmed the
changes. So, what is the 2M side giving you other than repeated HF
audio? Nothing!

Perhaps a power limit would be in order for 2M Auxiliary operation, but
that's why the FCC issued the NPRM - to get comments from everyone. :-)

I will say that it is a surprising 180 degree turn from their previous
responses to Kenwood's petitions. The only real change seems to be the
absence of ARRL opposition this time. In the past, the FCC has always
given a 'thats the way it is' reply. This time, it's a 'we want to be
flexible' reply.

Joe M.

Gregg Lengling wrote:
> 
> Kenwood is just trying to market something they mis-designed a number of
> years ago and haven't been able to really sell it to the US Hams.





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Neil McKie]

  Now they are trying to get rid of them? 

  Neil 

Gregg Lengling wrote:
> 
> Kenwood is just trying to market something they mis-designed a 
> number of years ago and haven't been able to really sell it to 
> the US Hams.
> 
> Gregg R. Lengling, W9DHI, Retired
> Administrator http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org
> K2/100 S#3075 KX1 S# 57
> Politics is the art of appearing candid and completely open, while
> concealing as much as possible.   -States: The Bene Gesserit View
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard MI Ranta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:37 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!
> 
> Somebody isn't thinking too clearly on this one. 2 meters is already way
> over crowded. I like the idea of UHF and even SUHF,. Why not, its only for
> auxiliary use.
> Richard Ranta K8JX
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Gregg Lengling]

Kenwood is just trying to market something they mis-designed a number of
years ago and haven't been able to really sell it to the US Hams.


Gregg R. Lengling, W9DHI, Retired
Administrator http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org
K2/100 S#3075 KX1 S# 57
Politics is the art of appearing candid and completely open, while
concealing as much as possible.   -States: The Bene Gesserit View
 


-Original Message-
From: Richard MI Ranta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:37 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

Somebody isn't thinking too clearly on this one. 2 meters is already way
over crowded. I like the idea of UHF and even SUHF,. Why not, its only for
auxiliary use.
Richard Ranta K8JX





 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Richard MI Ranta]

Somebody isn't thinking too clearly on this one. 2 meters is already way
over crowded. I like the idea of UHF and even SUHF,. Why not, its only for
auxiliary use.
Richard Ranta K8JX





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[Jeff Otterson]

Gadzooks!  I don't know what to say.  This is a sea change in the rules and 
the philosophy behind them.

Personally, I don't think that auxiliary operation should be allowed below 
70cm, where there is (still) plenty of spectrum available.  Think about 
this: there is only 4 MHz in the 144-148 segment, and only 3 MHz in the 
222-225 segment, but there is 30 MHz in the 420-450 allocation...

The kind of operation that Kenwood proposes with their Sky Command would 
encourage wide-area, omni-directional auxiliary links on 2 meters.  This is 
not good.  I do not concur that the auxiliary links used for Sky Command 
will be low-power point-to-point.  The section of the band that is proposed 
is already heavily utilized with repeaters and packet.  The Sky Command 
users will be operating fixed channel without coordination.

This is bad, bad.

Kenwood should focus on a solution that is acceptable to U.S. Amateurs, 
like (contrary to my earlier statement) 222 and 440 MHz.  Let them breathe 
some new life into the 222 band with their Sky Command solution.

Jeff

At 05:25 PM 4/15/2004, you wrote:
>For everyone's Info:
>
>
>Yes, this means linking would be possible on 2M legally.
>(above 144.500 MHz except 145.800-146.000)
>
>Joe M.
>_
>
>Excerpts from NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER
>
>Adopted: March 31, 2004
>Released: April 15, 2004
>Comment Date: June 15, 2004
>Reply Comment Date: June 30, 2004
>
>The major rule changes we propose today are as follows:
>
>. Revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators in four
>High Frequency bands;
>
>. Permit auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m amateur service band;
>
>. Permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on
>the 1.25 m band;
>
>. Permit amateur stations to re-transmit communications from the
>International Space Station;
>
>. Allow amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to
>receive their call sign, in memoriam;
>
>. Prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a
>specific vanity call sign;
>
>. Eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on certain equipment
>manufacturers;
>
>. Allow amateur radio stations in or near Alaska more flexibility in
>providing emergency communications; and
>
>. Eliminate unnecessary rules in the amateur radio operator license
>examination system.
>
>
>
>17. Auxiliary stations. Background. The amateur service rules define an
>auxiliary
>
>station as an amateur station, other than one in a message forwarding
>system, that is transmitting
>
>point-to-point communications within a system of cooperating amateur
>stations. Section
>
>97.213(a) of the Commission's Rules provides that an amateur station on
>or within 50 km of the
>
>Earth's surface may be under telecommand where there is a radio or
>wireline control link
>
>between the control point and the station sufficient for the control
>operator to perform his or her
>
>duties. If the control link between the control point and the amateur
>station is a radio control
>
>link, then the control link must use an auxiliary station. An amateur
>station that is an auxiliary
>
>station may transmit on the 1.25 meter (m) and shorter wavelength bands,
>with certain
>
>exceptions. The underlying purpose of limiting auxiliary stations to
>these bands is to minimize
>
>the possibility of harmful interference to other amateur service
>stations and operations,
>
>particularly "weak signal" activity in the 2 m (144-148 MHz) band.
>
>
>
>18. On November 4, 1999, Kenwood Communications Corp. (Kenwood), a
>manufacturer
>
>of amateur radio equipment, requested a declaratory ruling confirming
>that its "Sky Command
>
>System" (Sky Command) complies with the amateur service rules.
>Alternatively, Kenwood
>
>requested the Commission to grant blanket rule waivers so that amateur
>service licensees could
>
>utilize Sky Command. In 2000, the Public Safety and Private Wireless
>Division denied
>
>Kenwood's request, concluding that Section 97.201(b) of the Commission's
>Rules does not
>
>authorize auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band, and that
>Kenwood did not meet the
>
>standards for a waiver request.
>
>
>
>19. Subsequently, on May 1, 2001, Kenwood requested that we amend
>Section 97.201(b)
>
>of our Rules to allow auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band
>above 144.5 MHz, except
>
>145.8-146.0 MHz, in addition to the frequency segments previously
>authorized. Kenwood
>
>states that this proposed rule change would increase the flexibility of
>amateur radio licensees
>
>without adversely affecting other services or amateur radio stations
>that use the 2 m band, and
>
>would promote the development and use of new technology, including Sky
>Command.
>
>
>
>20. Discussion. The Commission received twenty-four comments supporting
>Kenwood's
>
>request and sixteen comments opposing the request. Those supporting
>Kenwood

[Repeater-Builder] FCC considers Auxiliary Operation on 2M!

[mch]

For everyone's Info:


Yes, this means linking would be possible on 2M legally.
(above 144.500 MHz except 145.800-146.000)

Joe M.
_

Excerpts from NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER

Adopted: March 31, 2004
Released: April 15, 2004
Comment Date: June 15, 2004
Reply Comment Date: June 30, 2004 

The major rule changes we propose today are as follows:

. Revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators in four
High Frequency bands;

. Permit auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m amateur service band;

. Permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on
the 1.25 m band;

. Permit amateur stations to re-transmit communications from the
International Space Station;

. Allow amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to
receive their call sign, in memoriam;

. Prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a
specific vanity call sign;

. Eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on certain equipment
manufacturers;

. Allow amateur radio stations in or near Alaska more flexibility in
providing emergency communications; and

. Eliminate unnecessary rules in the amateur radio operator license
examination system.

 

17. Auxiliary stations. Background. The amateur service rules define an
auxiliary

station as an amateur station, other than one in a message forwarding
system, that is transmitting

point-to-point communications within a system of cooperating amateur
stations. Section

97.213(a) of the Commission’s Rules provides that an amateur station on
or within 50 km of the

Earth’s surface may be under telecommand where there is a radio or
wireline control link

between the control point and the station sufficient for the control
operator to perform his or her

duties. If the control link between the control point and the amateur
station is a radio control

link, then the control link must use an auxiliary station. An amateur
station that is an auxiliary

station may transmit on the 1.25 meter (m) and shorter wavelength bands,
with certain

exceptions. The underlying purpose of limiting auxiliary stations to
these bands is to minimize

the possibility of harmful interference to other amateur service
stations and operations,

particularly “weak signal” activity in the 2 m (144-148 MHz) band.

 

18. On November 4, 1999, Kenwood Communications Corp. (Kenwood), a
manufacturer

of amateur radio equipment, requested a declaratory ruling confirming
that its “Sky Command

System” (Sky Command) complies with the amateur service rules.
Alternatively, Kenwood

requested the Commission to grant blanket rule waivers so that amateur
service licensees could

utilize Sky Command. In 2000, the Public Safety and Private Wireless
Division denied

Kenwood’s request, concluding that Section 97.201(b) of the Commission’s
Rules does not

authorize auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band, and that
Kenwood did not meet the

standards for a waiver request.

 

19. Subsequently, on May 1, 2001, Kenwood requested that we amend
Section 97.201(b)

of our Rules to allow auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m band
above 144.5 MHz, except

145.8-146.0 MHz, in addition to the frequency segments previously
authorized. Kenwood

states that this proposed rule change would increase the flexibility of
amateur radio licensees

without adversely affecting other services or amateur radio stations
that use the 2 m band, and

would promote the development and use of new technology, including Sky
Command.

 

20. Discussion. The Commission received twenty-four comments supporting
Kenwood’s

request and sixteen comments opposing the request. Those supporting
Kenwood’s request state

that (a) the 2 m band is not heavily used and such use is no different
than other uses already

occurring on the band, (b) auxiliary stations transmit on short distance
simplex channels which

would not cause interference to other stations on the band, (c) it would
allow for the

development of new emergency communication systems and capabilities and
support other 

applications such as controlling an HF station in a vehicle, or from an
antenna-restricted

residence, and (d) it is consistent with flexible service rules.

 

21. On the other hand, some commenters state that it is not necessary
for auxiliary

stations to transmit on the 2 m band because sufficient amateur service
spectrum is available on

and above the 220 MHz band. Others claim that the 2 m band is heavily
used, and argue that

increased interference will occur if the rules are revised as Kenwood
requests. Some

commenters believe that existing rules are sufficient to address this
concern, or that licensees

can either address this issue amongst themselves or through existing
coordination policies.

 

22. Because we have no basis to conclude that auxiliary stations
transmitting on the 2 m

band would cause harmful interference or