Simplex QSO's on 146.52

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KC9BRZ, Sep 8, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
  1. KB9YKY

    KB9YKY Banned QRZ Page

    So called "calling frequencies" are not intended to be "call only" frequencies. That seems to be wide spread misconception. They were created to be a spot just to find traffic, a point at which to congregate. Are you sure this guy is really an oo? OO's usually don't get involved with local, "in town" issues, nor the "what ifs" and "rumor mills". It is also not their practice to announce proposed and/or upcoming rule changes. Short qso's on calling freqs are perfectly acceptable and are common practice. If the FCC were to (which I doubt very much) designate such freqs as actual, nothing else, "call only" most ops would just figure out another freq to use in place of the "mandated" one (rumor)= making a channel such as "FM 52" totally unused. It would be would put in theirs 2 cents worth on this.
     
  2. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    The FCC has never set aside any frequency for a specific purpose except during times of emergencies at which time they will specify a certain range of frequencies to be reserved for communications regarding that particular emergency. Normally, those are well publicized and last for only a few days.

    It sounds like your OO doesn't have a "clue" as to what is going on.

    Glen, K9STH
     
  3. KB9YKY

    KB9YKY Banned QRZ Page

    What was the OO s callsign? A little research might prove interesting [​IMG]
     
  4. N2OBY

    N2OBY Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phineas @ Sep. 09 2002,08:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frankly, I am glad that simplex on VHF is coming back. Now all we need is more affordable all mode radios, then simplex would really rock.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I wholeheartedly agree. The cost of new (when available) and used VHF/UHF multi-mode gear has kept it out of my shack. Simplex is definitely cool, and all the more so by the fact that when you search out someone to talk to, it's usually a little more interesting because they too are looking for something beyond the usual repeater junkies.
     
  5. W5ATX

    W5ATX Guest

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phineas @ Oct. 22 2002,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You guys are not going to believe this.

    Me and a friend were talking on 146.520, 2 nights a go around 11:00 pm. Last night a local &quot;OO&quot; tells me that the FCC is going to make a rulling to enforce 146.520 as a calling Frequency only? Has anyone else heard about this or what. Inquiring minds want to know. As far as I know, this was just a gentleman's agreement. Especially when the frequency around here is hardly used.

    Truth, or have the Frequency Police striked again?

    Phineas
    K0KMA[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yes, it's true. Read my post on this very subject:
    http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin....t=21543

    I didn't realise this thread was here, or I would have made that post here.

    THis is INSANE!!! I suggest using 52 simplex MORE.

    ARRL - in charge.

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
     
  6. KG4UDX

    KG4UDX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Riley has apparently retracted the letters (read the end of the above mentioned thread).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page