Loss of two meter simplex frequencies IMMINENT in Texas!

Anybody remember the poll taxes of years back? Having to drive to Austin to vote is a poll tax, it just goes by another name.

 

I would have to agree with this. There should be an easy method for all FM users to express their opinion. Texas is too large to require people to travel around. 30 years ago, I lived in El Paso. We were closer to San Diego, CA than to Houston, TX.

Joe

 

Well said Greg! I also attended the meeting and was greatly dissapointed there were only 21 folks that showed up (only 18 were present at the end of the meeting because a few had left upset) What I took away from the meeting was "QSY, get over it, and SHUT UP!" Here is the scoop... Digital is going to be given prefrence over analog machines. The VHF society is raking in huge profits of increased membership over this so they are going to egg it on and keep raking in revenue as long as they can. Greg proposed the question and no denial was made to the contrary.The meeting started on time and was going very well until one gentleman started talking and was not satisfied with ANY answer given by the VHF rep. This individual came in with a fighting attitude and was on a witch hunt. If this individual had not been present I have a feeling most folks would have left the meeting on a positive note. Its too bad one bad apple can spoil a meeting for 20 other folks. All of the other hams were very tactful and professional in their questions. I read somewhere that hams are among the smartest folks in America. This made me proud of my license! After how this individual conducted himself last night I am ashamed to be lumped into the sam category as him.Greg raised several good points, my favorite being the fact that unless you throw $15.00 for membership at them your vote does not count and the ham radio community as a whole is going to be stripped of some of out frequencies. Most of us were led to beleive this was going to be information session and to gather opinions of those in attendance. We were sadly mistaken. It turned out to be just the opposite and it was to inform us of what they are cramming down our throats. (more to come later)

 

actually Joe, NO, it doesn't "make sense".
right now the SIMPLEX users are (as you say) using a part of the band where repeaters ARE NOT ALLOWED. and the repeater folks want to take that area where (again, as you say) "repeaters will not be able to invade" away from them.

bottom line: The FCC has granted local coordinators the ability to coordinate repeaters in these subbands, all (both analog & digital) repeaters need to stay IN the FCC mandated sub band.

 

The Society on it's FAQ page refers to the FM simplex allocation, so apparently they recognize those simplex frequencies as an allocation.

A little story to make my point - One day I was talking to the hand specialist (MD) that my wife sees about Pres. Obama's proposed health care changes. He said that in his opinion we need some changes in how health care is being handled but that he VERY much disliked the proposed changes being forced down Americans throats with absolutely no input and therefore opposed the measure as it was unAmerican.

Such is this proposal.

 

Pasted from the "FAQ" link on the Texas VHF-FM Society website:

"I thought it was illegal to reassign FM Simplex Frequencies? I thought only the FCC can change the band plan?

FCC part 97.205 states where a repeater may NOT operate:

(b) A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0–29.5 MHz, 50.0–51.0 MHz, 144.0–144.5 MHz, 145.5–146.0 MHz, 222.00–222.15 MHz, 431.0–433.0 MHz, and 435.0–438.0 MHz segments.

But the FCC does not designate specific FM phone simplex frequencies nor does it perform detailed 2m band planning. All other 'plans' are by gentleman's agreement. "


Not much of a "gentleman's agreement" when a hand full (which is all the Texas VHF-FM Society is, a hand full) of op's are trying to shove their agenda down everyone else's throat.


Also from their "FAQ" link:

"It is no small task to try and obtain agreement among the 48,000+ hams in Texas. Overall we recognize this change affects the entire state and we want to be as inclusive as possible. Comments on this or any other topic are still welcome, and may be sent to the Secretary via email at secretary@txvhffm.org . "

Sure. Include everyone. Just make them join your "club" in order to have any input that might count, and make them drive to Austin to "vote" instead of doing it online. Very inclusive. Not.

It is simple. The simplex ops were/are there first. Any digi repeater on simplex frequencies will be interfering with them, not the other way around.

As mentioned many times, the reason the repeater pairs are "full" in the larger cities is because they won't close the paper repeaters. Close them, re-assign to a digi repeater, and don't interfere with the simplex ops.

 

The FCC doesn't even recognize a Dstar system operating on the simplex portion of the band as "repeaters" for that matter.

When operated on simplex frequencies, Dstar is just another digital mode just like packet.

Bill Cross of the FCC himself said Dstar operating in such a manner is not considered a repeater and therefore should not even be "coordinated" for that matter.

Whats next? Coordinating the space station and EME frequencies too?

2m simplex frequencies are a shared national resource intended for all amateurs. They don't "belong" to the Texas VHF society.

Keep you hands off "OUR" simplex frequencies!

 

That was the same belief presented by the president of the VHF society yesterday, if you do not like the new band plan, take the big dial and turn it.

Sorry but there is no reason to take a freq that someone has been using for years and is recognized and say you must leave so this special interest group can play here now.

Sorry but the line in the sand has been drawn and we need to defend the band plan as it is laid out.

Personally I agree with earlier statements that the ARRL should lay out a national band plan and the individual organizations use that plan to lay out repeater locations to avoid interference.

The state wide VHF groups serve a good purpose to control and limit interference from one repeater to another, but they are OVER STEPPING ALL BOUNDRIES WHEN THEY TRY TO CHANGE THE BAND PLAN OR CREATE A BAND PLAN. That is not what they were intended for and it is unacceptable to those who are not slaves to repeaters.

 

That's how I feel.
This is only the first taking before long everyone who does D-Star will want a repeater more frequencies will be taken away just to sit there tying up a bit more spectrum while it sits there unused........again and again and again!

 

Exactly how many of us feel.....Simplex users are quickly becoming organized and a Simplex Protection group is forming out of the Texas Grid Bandits. This group will continue to promote Grid chasing on the VHF/UHF bands, but will also begin to work and organize to protect our Simplex frequencies.

I will be posting more information as the organization finalizes it's charter in this direction.

 

It looks like you don't understand the FCC rules. Repeaters are allowed any where between 146 and 148 MHz. Check and see if these frequencies fall in that area. If they do, then the FCC has no problem with repeaters there, coordinated or not. If this proposal does not go through, there is nothing stopping anyone from putting up a repeater on these very channels, if they so desire. The frequencies are legal for repeater use, or simplex. If a frequency is not being used on a regular basis in an area for simplex activity, might as well have a repeater there.

The area between 145.5 and 146.0 does not allow repeaters, by law. The frequencies below 144.5 do not allow repeaters, by law. If you guys are so concerned about repeaters, move your simplex operations to these areas. You will not be bothered by repeaters on those frequencies, which by law, do not permit their operations there.

Or move your operations to an unused repeater channel. If there is no repeater working on the freq, then it is great for simplex usage. I see so many posts about the vacant channels and paper repeaters that it looks like there should be tons of room. If the repeaters do not exist, more room for simplex.

I find the debate somewhat amusing. All this simplex activity yet a handful of people bother to post here, or attend the meeting, or express their outrage. I think the simplex activity is either overstated, or most simplex users don't see a problem. Spin the dial and move to a channel that a repeater can't be on. You can show them!

Joe

 

You need to read the latest statements from the FCC on this. They certainly say that a D-star machine fits the description of a repeater, and as such may only be placed on frequencies where repeaters are allowed by law. That is a big plus for annoyed simplex users, because it means that D-star machines will not invade the entire band, like Bill Cross wanted them to. They have to stay in the band segments allowed for repeaters.

Joe

 

And repeaters are legally allowed in 3MHz out of the 4MHz of the 2m band.
Try reading this post:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.ph...NT-in-Texas!&p=2295577&highlight=#post2295577

 

ATTENTION SIMPLEX USERS:

It is vital that we counter the select few who think the VHF society is for them and the 2 meter band is for them and what they want. We need to fight the Armadillo group who think they can run rough shod over all Texas hams for their benefit.

JOIN THE VHF SOCIETY, AND VOTE NO TO THIS BAND PLAN CHANGE;

YOU CAN JOIN AT SUMMER FEST AND YOU CAN VOTE THEN.....

 

Speaking of numbers. It would be difficult to say exactly how many 'active' D-Star users are represented by the total units sold in the U.S at this point. However, if you take that number (less than 10,000 active) and divide it by the G2 enabled repeaters 'now active', you get a smaller number per repeater than the 20 check ins-mentioned in the quoted post, right?

Just sayin'...