Loss of two meter simplex frequencies IMMINENT in Texas!

I totally agree with you. With dozens of available 2M simplex channels, there are plenty for everyone to use. Some people have their own private simplex channels, and will run others off if they hear them on. But most areas have some unused repeater pairs where simplex can be conducted as well.

Joe

 

Trollin, trollin, trollin...

This proposal didn't go anywhere in 2008. Is there some reason to think it's still pending now?

I don't think there are too many parts of the country, though, where an open repeater pair can't be found on UHF, and it's obnoxious to consider stuffing more onto 2 meters when 99% of them are dead already. Try UHF for heaven's sake. We replaced a long dead analog UHF repeater with a DSTAR machine, and the coverage is much better, even though the DSTAR runs much less power. The UHF DSTAR penetrates buildings much better than the analog VHF machine sitting next to it.

I actually don't care much either way - the simplex frequencies get little use beyond two or three common ones. 147.42 was designated as the preferred frequency for simplex EchoLink gateways some years ago, because it was so little used. But I actually hate to see us putting more 2 meter repeaters up and taking more spectrum for it. If I were king, I'd do away with 2/3 of the repeater band as it is.

 

Reminds me of the D-Star Yahoo group who I am no longer a member of either. Also if D-Star is so great then why is there a need to make room for it. I thought it was a narrow band width allowing it to be much more robust and more efficient!! Then why I am I having to give up some simplex that I use regularly?

But not only would it not surprise me if Icom is behind this but also Homeland Security who pushes the use of D-Star!! I personally can't stand either of the two!!

This is essentially nothing more than more politics and government being crammed down our throats once again!!! This should not be up for vote in Texas but should be a up for vote across the whole USA as well. Why should I or anyone have to stop using a simplex freq. just because I cross a state line? Also it has gaps in it and who has time to re-learn the band plan and remember all the gaps? This is nothing more than another special interest group taking more from the everyday citizen!!

D-Star go stick it where the sun don't shine!!!!! I can do everything D-Star does for thousands less money and with out a single thing having the Icom name on it which makes me very happy!!!!

Randall - WW5RM

 

I appreciate the wishful thought but it simply is not consistent with the regulations or case law. The matter would be adjudicated by FCC procedures and the so called "frequecny cordination board" would have no standing. It would be quick work by the defending attorney to show that in relation to a simplex operation the "frequecny cordination board" would have no bearing. It would come down to an issue of interpreting the circumstances under part 97.101 (d). It is interesting to note that "unintentional interference" is probably not punishable or prosecutable under part 97. Thank goodness, otherwise we would all eventually receive a "pink slip" from the FCC at some point in the life of our license.

I continue to point out that way too much scope is ascribed to frequency coordination activity. Yes it is beneficial to our hobby within its intended purpose but don't give it more rights or interests than that described in part 97. Their entire role is described in a few short sentences - be a discerning reader!

- Glenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ

 

What is this D-Star you talk about? Is it somehow related to Echo Link?

I don't know of anyone in my area who owns a D-Star radio. For what they retail for up here I won't be buying one anytime soon!

As for the repeaters around here.Most of them sit silent the majority of the time. I never use them, but I do use 52 simplex to talk a a buddy 20 miles away. But even now we have started using 6 meter FM for that. Hey I could sell my old Radio Shack HTX 212

 

PL does not filter anything out. If you have two stations transmitting on the same frequency there will be heterodyning. PERIOD! PL does not solve that problem.

 

The same is being attempted here in Southern California. The Two Meter "Coordination Body" has declared itself also the 70 CM coordination body, and has stated specific (channelized) simplex frequencies only be used, at their dictation. Our club (and it's members, as well as the general ham populace) has used 145.520 MHz as a general calling frequency in the local area; it's not the National calling frequency, but used locally for dozens of years.
Now, the coordinating body is making demands that we (and everyone else) change due to their channelizing the simplex frequencies. I doi't see that they have ANY authority to control the simplex frequencies; their sole authority within §97 is to coordinate repeaters.

Quite frankly, (IMHO) this is a power grab (here in So. Cal, and elsewhere) to establish D-STAR operations in the simplex areas of the VHF and UHF areas, when the FCC has stated that D-STAR operations (i.e. repeaters) have to abide by the SAME rules (and allocations) that apply to analogue operations.

IMHO, many so-called "Coordination" bodies have overstepped their authority, and perhaps it's time for the FCC to reign in these groups, before analogue simplex on our VHF and UHF is "outlawed" because of it's purported interference with mandated digital communications. (And that's my POLITE comment on the matter.)

 

Hey...it's Texas...

Well, it's because it's Texas, y'all...they do this kind of thing all the time down there. Just ask the other 11 teams in the Big 12 Football conference...(that, of course, includes a couple who left because they didn't want to put up with UT...). Same stuff, different day...

 

DStar is like Skype. BUT, Skype has more functionality and it's free.

 

No, I don't think it is reasonable to make more repeater pairs. Convert 1 in 10 analog pairs to digital, maybe one pair in 7 if demand requires it, rather than expanding the number of possible repeater pairs to allow for more paper repeaters.

I'm all for D-star, but not for giving it spectrum previously allocated to non-repeater use. Let existing repeaters convert to D-star if the demand is that great.

This is happening in San Francisco bay area as well and as far as I can tell, the ARRL is all for it. So much for spectrum defense.

 

I think he got it right, EMINENT, as in eminent domain, the act of taking simplex frequencies for the benefit of one company, Icom.

Richard, N7TGB

 

Very good curiosity, as an Icom owner that doesn't do Dstar & could care less about it, one must wonder if there was a large "grant" of Icom gear from an "anonymous" source ...
Anyway, who are these VHF "banditos" & what legal authority do they posses to tell an FCC licensed Ham what freqs to use/not use.....
An interesting issue, hope the FCC squashes them like a road kill armadillo......

 

As I read it, the concern isn't just because it's D Star but the'hijacking" of FCC allotted frequencies, No?!

 

First last i checked only the FCC can change band plans.
next we as hams need to be proactive with spectrum use and be looking at smaller spacing like the public sector has been forced into cut the band use from 20 to 15 or 10 and there's plenty of space if there's not enough now how many repeaters go unused 24-7 how many clubs have 5-10 repeater pairs that are barely used when they could be reusing the same frequencies with separate tones. Event better continually linking
systems and then allowing folks to take turns using them?it also seems to me that this not only violates FCC rules, perhaps Dstar should have its own place on the band much like CW does? Perhaps it is time that a
mandatory spacing plan is implemented that looks at these issues. Unfortunately two things maybe and have with other organizations of this type happened politics, self serving interests and Money. Hopefully this issue will work it's self out with out a drawn out almost assuredly public spectacle that only hurts Amateur radio.
Also it should be noted that Dstar is not a proprietary program just that ICOM has been the primary radio manufacturer to embrace it.

 

Yeah well, either way. Sure am curious why there needs to be "grammar lessons" on the Zed ????