Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: Is anyone else worried about amateur radio being able to survive the demand for more spectrum

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 15, 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ and Vancouver, BC (dual citizen)
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 196 Times in 78 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mars View Post
    I don't think we have much to worry about in terms of losing spectrum anytime soon.

    222-225 MHz: Same as above.
    The only problem with being a cougar and being married to such a young cub is they weren't around for most of what you experienced in life, but they're cute.

    And it doesn't matter that they only wanted a small piece, this was a huge hit morally to the community and even larger financial one, and all a waste apparently as it took so long UPS went to another system.... so hate to disgree but you may want to mention those numbers on the 220 you quoted started at 220 prior to this EXACT situation happening. UPS was the camel nose under the tent, you know what's coming next and as more hams die off and the new soy boy ***** boys like like I wrote that email to who refuse to stand up for us, like in that ARRL email I wrote, the less power we'll have.

    This first editorial is good, especially his comments around 1296, and he's spot on, it's OUR OWN FAULT.
    http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/hamradio/narago.ham

    https://urgentcomm.com/2002/03/06/why-220mhz/

    http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/220-mhz.124672/

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/507203
    KB6JEN, VE7OTH, and WRDJ919 (GMRS)
    TS-480SAT, IC-7300, FT-817ND, Motorola Spectra 100W (V), Yaesu FTM-10R, XTS5000 (V/U) (x2), Astro Saber 3 (V), Uniden SDS100 and SDS200, SDRPlay Duo, Pro-2006, BC780XLT


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to jjbond For This Useful Post:

    com501 (Jun 03, 2019)

  3. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 22, 2014
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 29 Times in 14 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1348 View Post
    Okay, I am a licensed hambone, too, and I am not saying that your pitch wasn't valid then because it sounds like it was. However, how valid is that argument today?
    Where I live now, it's still pretty valid. I'm in a rural county with some terrain issues, a couple of thousand square miles and not much in the way of SO/FD commo resources. Celtel? I can drive 6 miles from home on a US highway with full signal on my American Toy Telephone cellular, and I know which edge marker to say "I'll call you back!" -- they will hear every word, just before it goes completely LOS, like Apollo going around the edge of the moon. 8 miles further along, it comes back almost as rapidly. I've got 2 meter coverage the whole way.

    Not long ago, I lived in a county of nearly 10000 square miles, a population density of less that two people per square mile -- and a public safety budget to match. They were SERIOUS about getting hams to provide commo for events such as searches, flooding, etc.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to SoloCDR For This Useful Post:

    jjbond (Jun 04, 2019)

  5. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 15, 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ and Vancouver, BC (dual citizen)
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 196 Times in 78 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1348 View Post

    1: Okay, I am a licensed hambone, too, and I am not saying that your pitch wasn't valid then because it sounds like it was. However, how valid is that argument today?

    2: Granted, amateur radio operators are bringing the communications component to the table. However, in my area anyway, we have a great statewide system.

    3: Again, it may be different in your area, but in mine it seems like a lot of the public service oriented hams have a solution, are looking for a problem, but the solution has already been found for the local PD/FD. Also, in this day and age of civil litigation, vicarious liability, civil suits involving negligent training, supervision and retention, would you as a decision maker rather call out, your local police reserves or some random radio nerds that often have a widely varying skills and training?
    1: I'm no less a Ham today than I was in 1986 when I first got my novice ticket. Developments like the Internet or where I live are irrelevant and don't justify reduction of rights. Numerous times Ham's have entered bills, to get back our basic rights as a home owner which some feel is justified due to our history of RACES, ARES, MARS etc work which I never said should give me special rights... Basic rights of a homeowner are what I'm talking about and we don't lose them because we've gotten older and times have changed. We're having a hard enough time as it is getting younger people into the hobby, we don't need to be punished for the movement of time as well.

    2: Congratulations, you have a great statewide system, does that mean that I in another part of the country deserve to have something taken from me? Regardless of "my states" system and it's capabilities, we don't punish someone in one part of the country because we built up infrastructure in our own area.

    3: While I understand partially the basis for your continued returning to the "Jennifer should only be allowed to use a VHF portable on her own property and no antennas we can see from the street because the police no longer need her help/I have good infrastructure in my state so she should too", it has NOTHING to do with my comments, I never stated the only reason we're allowed antennas is because I helped by volunteering some place but as I mentioned above, we should still have basic rights of a property owner and that right doesn't go away because someone thinks infrastructure is good some place.
    KB6JEN, VE7OTH, and WRDJ919 (GMRS)
    TS-480SAT, IC-7300, FT-817ND, Motorola Spectra 100W (V), Yaesu FTM-10R, XTS5000 (V/U) (x2), Astro Saber 3 (V), Uniden SDS100 and SDS200, SDRPlay Duo, Pro-2006, BC780XLT

  6. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 24, 2019
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
    Country: Great Britain

    Default

    Here is another issue coming along on in Europe .France wants to re allocate 144-146 MHz for aeronautical use .I thought this was a late April fools joke but it seems to be a serious proposal.
    http://www.southgatearc.org/news/201...m#.XP9keVVKi2w

  7. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 15, 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ and Vancouver, BC (dual citizen)
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 196 Times in 78 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iltisman View Post
    Here is another issue coming along on in Europe .France wants to re allocate 144-146 MHz for aeronautical use .I thought this was a late April fools joke but it seems to be a serious proposal.
    http://www.southgatearc.org/news/201...m#.XP9keVVKi2w
    OMG... thank you for posting this..
    KB6JEN, VE7OTH, and WRDJ919 (GMRS)
    TS-480SAT, IC-7300, FT-817ND, Motorola Spectra 100W (V), Yaesu FTM-10R, XTS5000 (V/U) (x2), Astro Saber 3 (V), Uniden SDS100 and SDS200, SDRPlay Duo, Pro-2006, BC780XLT

  8. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 04, 2012
    Posts
    1,854
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 644 Times in 290 Posts

    Default

    Really and I assume that the rest of the EU is going to stop using the band. I doubt NA activities will affect operations there. Even if they use it for strictly data communications a .5 watt transciever at 10,000 can carry and pick up signals from 100s of miles especially over water.

    This is poorly thought out.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Notarola For This Useful Post:

    motorola_otaku (Jun 11, 2019),Viper1-6 (Jun 11, 2019)

  10. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 22, 2019
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    France had put up a similar proposal a few years back which was rejected outright. Not sure if there's much to worry about there.

  11. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 21, 2019
    Location
    Keswick, Virginia
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Country: United States

    Default

    Yes, I fear the trend as well. A band with low activity will be at risk for licensed or ISM takeover; conversely, a band with high activity, a broad base of users, and some documented public service activity will be the most defendable. And equipment manufacturers need to see it in their best interests to be aligned with the current amateur population rather than the group proposing a re-purposing of the band. Unfortunately, attracting a significant number of new users means dumbing down the licensing and technical barriers. We see this defense at work already for decades with the no-code movement and low-tech licensing.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to bwilson For This Useful Post:

    com501 (Jul 24, 2019)