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/
