HOW THE H*** DOES ONE ADD THE ATTACHMENT TO THE POST. AS USUAL, THIS YAHOO CRAP IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIGURE OUT. THERE'S GOT TO BE A BETTER HOST THAN THIS JOKE! Tom A.
--- In [email protected], "wb6dgn" <tallins...@...> wrote: > > If I can figure out how to do it right, I have a scan from the ARRL > Handbook form 1961 and also the License Manual from 1961. Both list the > frequency assignments for the various license classes. You will see > that, for Technician Class license, the 2meter assignment was 145 to 147 > Mc. NOT 144 to 148 as some have stated. If the attachment, titled > ARRL1961 doesn't show up, would a moderator please explain more clearly > than yahoo, how to send it. > Tom DGN > --- In [email protected], MCH <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 (tha > > 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 [email protected], wd8chl wd8chl@ 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 > > > > > >
