Just trying something...
Ray, KB0STN
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] [Repeater-Builder] Re: ACSSB
you cannot, as yahoo is C**p
i use Gmail for my emailing attachments
wb6dgn wrote:
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
> > >
> >
>
