Oh, my point was that the techs had access to the entire 2M band before there were repeaters in the sub-band (144.5 - 145.5 MHz), so the sub-band had no impact on the techs, or vice versa.
I remember when the sub-band was the black sheep of the 2M band. Joe M. MCH wrote: > I believe the OP is essentially correct. The "2M sub-band" didn't come > until much later - I was thinking it was the late 70s, but it could have > been the early 80s. > > Your point was why the 146 MHz pairs were more popular - because the > techs could not use the 147 MHz pairs. > > The 146 MHz segment was originally 60 kHz channels (146.610, 146.670, > 146.730, Etc.), then went to 30 kHz in most areas - going to 20 kHz > channels in some, then the 30 kHz was again broken down into 15 kHz > channels. The sub-band was always 20 kHz until some areas changed that, too. > > Check out some of the older RDs for more info. Some of the early 70s > ones even listed the Input/Output modulation, such as 5/5 or 15/5 or > 15/15 (meaning deviation in / deviation out). > > Joe M. > > wb6dgn wrote: >> "duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only >> allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until >> the 80's." >> >> Close, but not exactly. When repeaters first came to be used on the ham >> bands in the late '50s/early '60s the 2m band from 144 to 148 Mc was only >> available to General class licensees and above. Novice (yes, Novice had >> some 2m voice privileges at that time) and Technician licensees were only >> allowed to operate in the 2m band from 145 to 147 Mc. Therefore if a >> repeater owner wanted to make his repeater available to the widest >> "audience" he had to keep both input and output within the 145 to 147 range. >> Interestingly, there was a repeater in the S. F. Bay area (somewhere down >> the Peninsula, I believe, maybe Stanford) that did have it's input and >> output on 144 and 147+ with the clearly stated reason that Novices and >> Techs. were not welcome. Never seemed to bother anyone I knew; that group >> carried on some pretty "stuffy" conversations anyway and there were enough >> 145 to 147 machines to go around including at least one AM repeater. >> However the only repeater at the time (th a > t I >> know of) using 600Kc separation was the WB6AAE repeater in the foothills >> east of Oakland on Grizzly Peak. If they had a role in establishing the >> later standard, I have no idea >> Tom DGN >> >> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, wd8chl <wd8...@...> wrote: >>> Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis wrote: >>>> wonder why the fcc does not allow acssb above 30 mhz on the ham bands? >>>> seems >>>> to me they would want to promote more efficient modes through all the ham >>>> bands. >>>> >>>> another interesting thing would be to see 2 meter repeaters go to 2 or 3 >>>> mhz >>>> splits and employ some form of efficient modulation mode instead of the >>>> same >>>> old 10 khz fm. >>>> >>>> and i am sure we will be all dead before this happens :) >>>> >>>> one can imagine though. >>>> >>>> better tx/rx isolation, cleaner signals, employ some form of narrow band >>>> modulation scheme and we could even ease congestion on 2 meters. >>>> >>>> >>>> i still can't imagine how the 600 khz split was decided for 2 meters when >>>> there is room for at least a 2 mhz split. >>>> >>> duh-because when repeaters were first authorized for 2M, they were only >>> allowed from 146 to 148. 144.5-145.5 didn't come into existence until >>> the 80's. >>> >>> No-2M is too populated to do any changes. Not gonna happen until they >>> just flat stop making FM gear. Not in my life time, not in your kids >>> lifetimes, probably not in your grandkids lifetimes either. >>> >>> Same with the 150-174 LMR band...WAAAAAY to much gear out there to try >>> to standardize input/output. >>> >>> Look at the bright side-at least the ham band HAS a standard. There is >>> none in the LMR segment. >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 >> 05:58:00 >> > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
