I would have to agree with Keith WE6R, the FCC has been on a roll here lately re-banding several different frequency bands, why not reband the 10m band to accomodate more repeater pairs?
One thing some people seem to be missing in this thread... at least I haven't seen anyone else mention it... are the numerous 10m 'remote bases' that are out there. Even though according to one ARRL official "if a repeater is linked in any manner to 10m; the 10m frequency must be within the 10m repeater sub-band." Just my two cents worth...... Brian Romine KC5CAY --- In [email protected], "Jeff Kincaid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That sounds like a great way to cause massive, worldwide interference > problems when the sunspots return. But hey, you can petition the FCC > for it and see what happens if you'd like. > > 'JK > > --- In [email protected], Johnny <jstowers@> wrote: > > > > I know it may sound to simple but how about splitting the repeater > > sub-band. Put the repeater inputs at the top of the main band and the > > outputs at the bottom of the main band. Or vice-versa. > > Johnny > > > > > > Jeff Kincaid wrote: > > > The band may be huge, but the FM sub band is smaller and the repeater > > > sub band is smaller still. Just how wide of a split would you like to > > > use in a 200 kHz wide band? > > > > > > Jeff W6JK > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "kb1we6r" <capyo670@> wrote: > > > > > >>Why oh why did they pick 100KHz??? The 10m band is HUGE with no > > >>activity (even when the band is open, there should be plenty of room > > >>for a better repeater plan). > > >>.... Keith, WE6R in Monterey CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
