eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

2-Meter SSB on 146.52?

Norman Sullivan (NZ5L) on December 12, 2012
View comments about this article!

More and more off-the-shelf transceivers feature multi-mode VHF capability -- THE FULL POTENTIAL OF WHICH IS NOT BEING REALIZED!

I was among the many, (if not most) who regarded 2-meter SSB as the realm of the experimenter/contester/moon-bounce DXer, and voluntarily confined myself to the upper reaches of the band, which, although not specifically limited by the rules, have by custom been allotted to FM operation.

However, good practice also directs us to use direct (ie, non-repeater) communication whenever feasible. On any given net you will hear quite a number of stations that can just about be copied on the input but with scratchy, non-full-quieting signals. If you have the chance, try the same station direct with SSB, using your FM vertical antenna. You will be amazed, as I was, over the increased intelligibility!

I had always assumed (wrongly) that even to contemplate VHF SSB operation, one should use a horizontally polarized antenna, preferably some type of beam, and preferably on at least a 50' tower. While this may represent some kind of ideal it is hardly a requirement. Most FM verticals incorporate collinear designs that result in significant omni directional gain, often on the order of 6 dbi, which is not to be sneezed at! These antennas are typically optimized for the 146-147 MHz portion of the band, but are NOT limited to FM modulation!

Here in hilly northeastern Pennsylvania, the difference in signal strength and copy ability of SSB over FM has at times exceeded 10 Db, or the difference between difficult copy and easy copy. If both stations are on an elevation, distances of 30 or more miles are possible with no repeater (or repeater clubs, dues, "police") being necessary.

In the earliest days of commercial VHF amateur gear, manufacturers such as Clegg and Gonset produced 2 meter AM gear for this very purpose, but the subsequent ascendancy of FM repeater communication hastened their demise.

Now, with SSB having range and intelligibility advantages over AM, it makes sense to use that multi-mode capability even if you are just running a Ringo Ranger bracketed to your chimney.

My experience is that 146.52 is way under used, particularly in non-urban areas, so why not also try it as an SSB calling frequency? The next time I am mobile with my 857D, I will do just that. If I work someone 50 or 60 miles away it will be real DX.

Meanwhile, try to set up informal nets with your neighbors using vertically polarized SSB. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KK9H on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I don't think this is a good idea. Granted 146.52 may be underutilized in many areas, but so is 144.200 +/- where you normally expect to find 2M SSB operation. SSB has all the advantages mentioned over FM, but putting SSB all over the band will make it confusing as to where it can really be found. Also, there are many people, myself included who do monitor 146.52 on their base rigs so during band openings the squelch would open and close with the SSB voice peaks and become very irritating very quickly. That would likely lead to even fewer people monitoring and using 146.52. That would ultimately be counterproductive to what I believe the idea of this thread is trying to achieve: more activity on 146.52.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N3AWS on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Why not simply adhere to the current band-plan?
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K9RFZ on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
One reason to operate SSB on 146.52 is that you probably already have your antenna resonant there and not so resonant on 144.200MHz.

While the FCC regulations do allow SSB on 146.520, the established band plans don't. Band plans aren't the law, but you risk a lot of chaos if you ignore the gentlemens' agreements inherent in band plans.

I thought the point of SSB on 146.520 was to open a new mode to many Tech licensees who often stall out at FM repeater use. I consider that more important to growing amateur radio than making certain 146.520 gets more active.

Joseph, K9RFZ
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WB0HZL on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
There has been a lot of time and effort put into designing the current Band Plan for 2 Meters. I think that we should stay with that.

Now having said that, I have to agree about the advantages of SSB on 2 Meters. I have made a lot of contacts using a 5/8 vertical and also an 11 element yagi horizontally polarized on 2 meters. Weak signal is a lot of fun and there is plenty of room of everyone using the current band plan.

I remember the days of AM and even CW and MCW on 2 Meters and the problems when FM repeaters were close in frequency to these stations. That is why the various band plans were developed. Listen to the 2 Meter Calling Frequency - BTW it is underutilized too, just like 146.52.

73 and Merry Christmas!
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K5LXP on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I wouldn't encourage SSB on an FM channel any sooner than I would encourage FM in a weak-signal subband.

Don't fix it, it ain't broken.


Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W4FJT on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
My biggest problem with it is that most of the mobile radios don't have the SSB feature. The SSB feature is mainly in the desktop radios. I still use the 146.52 traveling, and I monitor it driving around town. No it's not like the old 11 meter channel 19, but that's a good thing. I still make quite a few contacts there.

There is a place for 2 meter SSB, and I support the self discipline provided by band plans.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K5TED on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with NZ5L that moving the SSB call frequency up into the simplex portion of 2m is not a bad idea.

The point about vertical 2m antennas usually being resonant in the upper portion of the bands is well taken.

The bandplan specifies 146.40-146.58 and 147.42-147.57 as "simplex" with no mode designation.

Why not allow 146.40 the "strong signal" SSB call frequency, with QSOs moving up from there to between 146.45 to 146.58? Or use the upper simplex plan in the same manner, call frequency on 147.42, moving up to 147.57? Either would leave the sacred weak signal 144.10 - 144.2 spot alone as it is intended.

It certainly ain't broke at present, but it ain't being used much either, at least in my area. I wonder if others could weigh in with an observation of just how much the "simplex" slots are actually being used for FM in their respective areas?
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1HC on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I suggest that you try 144.205 SSB in the mornings if you want to use SSB as a mode on 2 meters. SWR issue? Put up a horizontal loop or a yagi for that portion of the band. There is a group on 144.205 from PA, NJ, CT and other states every morning. I can usually only hear the CT and NJ stations from my QTH in MA. If there's a vote on this, I'd vote to leave SSB in the SSB portion of the band according to the band plan. Can you legally use SSB on 146.52? Sure, but I think you will find most everyone is using FM on that frequency and won't be able to detect the SSB signal you are putting out. You will make more contacts by following the voluntary band plan.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KA0AAM on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
MY personal opinion. . . bad idea all around.
1. If the claim is 146.52 is unused, then I suggest listening to the calling frequency for SSB 2 Meters. It is even used less!

2. Adhere to the band plan. . .there already is a frequency set aside for 2M SSB calling. . . why not use it?

3. SSB is not a full carrier signal. FM repeaters need a signal that is consistent to keep it keyed up. Yeah, SSB will work with them, but if a weak SSB comes around, or the SSB user is not talking, there is no signal to activate the repeater. Ker-chunk!, Ker-chunk. .

4. Antenna resonance? if you can tune to 146.52, then you can pretty much tune to 144.2. Granted the SWR may not be 1:1, but if it is 2.5 to one or lower, It ain't going to hurt you.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by AF6AU on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting use of 146.52. This issue is one that has been around since FM on VHF began to become popular back in the AM vhf days, and now we also make room for the digital guys.

Things change and evolve, that's how we are supposed to be as a group. Back in the late 1950's, the AM VHF guys had to put up with ever increasing FM voice mode ops. Now the FM people in big metro areas are using NBFM, some others going digital as well. Who knows, in 30 years the popular norm may be digital with full motion 3D video or some holographic image. FM may be reduced to some 250khz slice of 2 meters.

SSB is just another voice mode. If it bucks "Band Plan" tradition, then wait for a clear frequency (check in FM mode if it's a FM band plan frequency), if nobody is there, go for it. I see no problems with it as long as respect for the primary mode is kept, and consider your SSB work a secondary use. If you are rural, or 2M is not used much, I would think there really is no issue.

SSB may also work well on the 220 band, whick we should begin to use more or we will soon lose it. Now that is an interesting and untapped combination, 220 SSB.

JML
AF6AU
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KG4RUL on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I smell a troll! http://www.kg4rul.info/TrollAlert.jpg
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KU4UV on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Not a good idea at all. There is a reason why we have band plans. I seriously doubt that using SSB on 146.52 is going to increase the activity there to begin with. Just my two cents.

73,
KU4UV
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KV4BL on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Not a great idea. As has already been correctly pointed out by others, 144.200 (SSB call freq) and other frequencies in the "weak signal" portion of the band are already there for SSB. Also, as correctly pointed out already, SSB activity would be terribly irritating to those few who do already monitor 146.52 FM. There is no reason to expand SSB into the FM portion of the band, especially on the FM Simplex calling channel.

I don't have a horizontal antenna for 2m but have made successful contacts on 2m SSB in the weak signal portion of the band with my tri-band Comet vertical. I have talked cross-polarization with stations over 100 miles away, doing this.

On secondary FM simplex channels, I confess to occasionally going to SSB while talking with FM friends and just playing around, but this is just to see what a difference in signal strength we get and these short ventures are brief in nature, as well as off the beaten path.

Doing regular SSB work on 146.52 is just inconsiderate and unnecessary.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by TTOMAS59 on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
The issue is most vhf/uhf ssb/cw users are dedicated to their activity while most FMers are appliance operators. Not sure if they should be on the same frequencies imho. Of course I never hear anyone on the repeaters anymore so it may not matter.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N6JSX on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Anyone that OPs 2m SSB knows if it is to be found it will be near 144.200.

I do not understand the premise that if the SSB call frequency is changed from 144.200 to 146.520 that it will generate more popularity and use. What supports this logic?

Now if you want to make an argument that there are far fewer 2m SSB rigs vs. FM rigs (for sale), then there is a clear foundation for that argument.

There are far fewer 70cm SSB rigs for sale today and I've never seen a dedicated 220 SSB rig. Maybe Chinese mobile rig makers will bring them to market, as the big four are not doing much to support our ever growing HAM market.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N6JSX on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Good suggestion IF the omnipotent Frequency Coordination Groups would publicize their band plans - and even one step better, coordinate their band plans with adjacent States/Countries.

OARC in Ohio has yet to publish their actual band plan {even on their web site} even though a motion was made in 2005 - voted & passed - to published the State band plan in the OARC brochure each year.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W6SDW on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Regional bandplans are in effect for a reason... To minimize chaos.

If you want to work 2 meter SSB, then get off your lazy backside and either
buy (or better yet BUILD) yourself a proper antenna and a switch.

Would prefer that you build the antenna - it's alot cheaper, you might LEARN something -and- have a little fun in the process.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N2RRA on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with this being a bad idea!

My question would be, What the Hell are you thinking?

There's a 2 meter SSB/CW/digital section that is tremendous in spectrum not even being utilized as it is and you ask to make the entire band SSB. That's just crazy!

Not trying to put you down or anything ,but you're not even considering all the other problems and activity we have on the VHF band as it is.

For one you have idiots ruining and not abiding by the band plan for one. Guys are sitting and having QSO's right on 146.520 FM the calling frequency all day every day around in the Tri-State now. Even as I'm writing this thread.

How can anybody like yourself in rural areas take advantage of the calling frequency with ,or with out propagation when these guys don't have the sense to make use of the rest of the FM spectrum and leave the "calling frequency" to just that.

THE CALLING FREQUENCY!!!

Next step would be too ruin the SSB calling frequency with the same no common sense practice ,or should I say no respect for the allocated band plan agreement.

Then you want to compromise the full potential and most common knowledgable true technical practice of running horizontal antennas on SSB for a vertical? CRAZY!

The other problem with that is trying to adopt verticals and losing the chance of really working someone with a 30db attenuated cross polarization disadvantage often because the rest of the world is running a Yagi. You wind up having everyone lose the technical importance and practice of running the proper equipment to gain the proper performance and results VHF has to offer.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make QSO's with a vertical and not to use them. Stick with what is and should always be than trying to reinvent the wheel confusing others with the common practice and law's of physics and electromagnetism that's already proven too work.

You wanna work further distances then run a loop, loops, Yagis, or even a quad beam. You can also run a moxon that is small, simple and cheap to make as are other types of beams if you're on a budget.

Yes, SSB too me is definitely my preference over a repeater and has it's advantages over a repeater as its disadvantage. When a repeater goes down I have the technical knowledge to use the utmost of 2m when a lot of others will not and be lost.

You're also proposing a "vertical SSB Net" with out considering others that are running beams?

Not amateur neighborly of you! Not to say you are ,but that to me is what's coming across.

Lead by example and teach that even if all you have is a vertical for now it should be temporary. Put up a home brew dipole, loop, yogi or purchase one. How difficult is that??

Sorry for what sounds like a rant ,but I'm tired of the technical aspect of the hobby being compromised and dumbed down. Really!

Sure, most verticals have 6dbi of gain that may be true for a base 2m antenna, but there's 30db attenuation lost in most cases when when the world is running horizontal and some are running a vertical on SSB especially when there is Tropo, Aurora, and E-scatter openings

Please take all this as constructive criticism!

73,
N2RRA
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N2RRA on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
W6SDW said it perfectly!


If I wanted to be more simple short and too the point!

 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WI0T on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
If 146.52 is under utilized in your area then use it with FM.

For now I'd say stick with the band plans.

73,
Rod
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N4KC on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Agreed that this suggestion seems to be a solution in search of a problem. If we want to encourage more mobile SSB use on 2M and 70CM, and more base-to-mobile SSB, maybe we should be discussing making the vertically-polarized antenna the standard for all modes on V/UHF rather than undoing a working band plan.

With so many 857s and IC-7000s out there in vehicles now, I think many of us would be interested in stirring up a mobile QSO on SSB sometimes. Even a CW chat! Maybe the manufacturers would be interested in creating dual-band multi-mode rigs, too, if the demand warranted.

But with so many using horizontally-polarized yagis on SSB and j-poles and verticals for FM, never the twain shall meet.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
(Author of the new book RIDING THE SHORTWAVES:
EXPLORING THE MAGIC OF AMATEUR RADIO)


 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KU4UV on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
There used to be a group of guys when I lived in Lexington, Kentucky that would hold nightly chats on 146.52 every night well into the wee hours of the morning. I don't know if this is still the case, as this was about 9 or 10 years ago. I thought the whole idea of having a calling frequency, whether it be on 2 meters or any other band, was to establish a contact and then move to another frequency. Simple enough, but there are always a few who have to screw it up for the rest of us.

73,
KU4UV
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KG6WLV on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
This reminds a bit of a bunch of guys in my area who decided to ragchew on 146.52, rather than using it for a call channel. When I took a special trip up to a local mountain to do some hilltopping with an HT and small Yagi, I could hardly break through all the quick-keying to make my presence known. They thought they were doing everyone a "favor" by "keeping the call channel busy."
I think any new ham trying out his/her HT on the call channel would be utterly confused -- correctly -- by hearing any other mode.
The band plan is decent and there is plenty of room for SSB in the current plan. I know; I was net control for a 2-meter net for three years. At one time, we had four "active" frequencies in Northern California -- three ragchew groups and a net frequency, in addition to the call channel, which was monitored by many operators.
Crosspolarization is not as big an issue as you might think -- in theory, you're giving away 20db, but in practice it's not that bad. I've run 50W into a 5/8 mag mount whip, and worked out to 50 miles with good stations, and the big guns beyond 150. On the other hand, manmade noise is mostly vertically polarized, and one simple loop antenna is easily mounted on a mobile setup. Also, FM is really cool horizontally polarized, noticably quieter to my ear.
But try THAT on 146.52.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by VE1CZ on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I live in Nova Scotia in FN85hq and 2 meter ssb is very low.There are a few of us that are getting things ready to give it a try.There is now an active beacon on 144.288(VE1UW) beaming SW with 10 watts.I will soon have a 13b2,a 170 watt brick and a TM255a ready to fire up,not really a big gun but it should be some fun anyway.There are also a few stations that have 1 k and better antennas than me and we will be beaming SW and calling on 144.200 ssb or cw so have a listen to the north on the next tropo opening.
Tnx Bob VE1CZ FN85hq
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K9CTB on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I'm pretty sure that any sane ham could have predicted the (un) popularity of this proposal even BEFORE reading all these comments! ;-)

73,
K9CTB
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N2RRA on December 12, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
VE1CZ,

Don't forget with that setup you can work some great meteor scatter using WSJT program and even attempt EME.

Use that setup to the fullest. Not just SSB/CW. You can even use CW using the WSJT program for meteor scatter and EME not just operator to operator traditional QSO.

Have fun and 73!

Just stay horizontal you you're not gonna get nothing. LOL! Unless you wanna talk to local verticals guys. ;)
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1CJS on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I have to echo the majority of the answerers to this suggestion--If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. The current band plan has been in place for years, and the people who regularly monitor 146.52--there are some--for any traffic would be pretty put off by the sudden use of SSB there, and that's putting it mildly.

So, to put it simply---NO!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by TTOMAS59 on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
The problem is two meters itself. For FMers it is just a fancy local cell phone substitute that is downright boring. For ssb and cwers the activity is so sparse and the equipment needed is so elaborate it begs the question 'is it worth it?'.

I don't care what happens on 2 meters. Besides HF I think 6 meters offers the most fun per dollar spent.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WA2DTW on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Bad idea. SSB and FM don't mix.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1HC on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Bob,VE1CZ-
I will be listening for that beacon on 144.288 and hope to catch you on a band opening on 144.200!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by HA7WX on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
My point is that it's basically a good idea although not suitable with current US bandplan. However, calls can still be done on 146.52 FM then a QSY few khz away in FM is done and if one of the stations' signals are fading (cause it's mobile), why not continue in SSB to continue and end the QSO? That's what i actually did a few times on our FM channels and nobody complained. Sure SSB is very useful, why just forget about it only because of the bandplan?
Thank you for reading, 73s de Chris.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by VE3TMT on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I thought 144.200 was the SSB calling frequency? Do we need another?
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by AA4PB on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Bad idea! Think about the FM guys monitoring that will hear "donald duck" from the SSB guys and the SSB guys monitoring that will hear "squeals" from the FM carriers.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1DA on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
The sad fact of the matter is that here in southern Rhode Island one can monitor '200 until the lamps on the radio burn out and only hear something when the bands opens or during a contest, and then it's the same few over and over. It is time to encourage more SSB on 2 meters, now that the FM portion is occupied by empty repeaters, but where to do it requires some thought.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K7AAT on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!

What a crappy idea... to put SSB operations in the middle of the nationally recognized FM portion of the spectrum.... and worse given that there is not need. 144.200 is already recognized as the 2M SSB calling freq. What's the point?

Hey, lets put CW, RTTY and other digital operations on 146.52 also. Make it one big happy family where no one will want to listen.

 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W5HMM on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I have another idea that you may want to try in your area that was tried here. The group used 144.270 to run a weekly SSB net for hams with vertical polarized antennas. I think it lasted for about 6 to 8 weeks and then interest started to fade. The last I heard it is now a monthly net if it even still exists. Give it a try in your area and see how many people show up, if anyone even show up.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N2RRA on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
AGAIN!

Doesn't anybody look at a band plan chart and abide by it and some common sense practice?

Why be so high up in the 2m band on 144.270 so close to a beacon frequency? There are a couple of beacons on 144.273.

Beacons in the U.S. start around 144.273 and even if you can't hear it where you are doesn't mean you should be so close or in it.

Just maybe another station two states away from you north, south, east ,or west won't be able to because you're splattering 3+ Khz plus and minus. Stay at least 5 Khz away from the spectrum realm not just for yourselves ,but for anybody else that might be effected by it. You've got 144.100 to at least 144.268 to play with.

144.000 to 144.100 is plenty for CW and digi although I believe 144.130 is used widely used for Meteor Scatter schedules.

Follow the damn "Band Plan"!!
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N1DVJ on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Where do these idiotic ideas come from?

Then again, is it really that idiotic? Perhaps specify 146.50 as SSB contact? Close enough to easily tune to.

But wait!!! Someone decided that all the simplex freqs were needed for 1M offset repeaters!

Another idiotic idea...
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KF4HR on December 13, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
This is probably a bad idea overall. You could be calling CQ on 146.52 USB locally, but at the other end your weak signal could get covered up by locally a 146.52 FM activity (hams following the band plan).

Why take the chance on potential FM interference wiping out your SSB signal? You'd stand a much better chance of being heard on the proper 2 meter SSB calling frequency. For what it's worth, my 2 cents...
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WB6DGN on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
"I wonder if others could weigh in with an observation of just how much the "simplex" slots are actually being used for FM in their respective areas?"

In the Cleveland/Akron, Ohio area many small groups and club members meet each other and "round-table" on the simplex frequencies. Just off the top of my head I can think of at least a half dozen groups that meet there. I believe there is more activity on simplex than on the repeaters except during the established nets.
I think that this is a very bad idea as it is a source for multiple arguments due mainly to cross-mode interference. The constant squelch opening with sideband modulation would be enormously annoying and would, for all intents and purposes, make the frequency unusable for FM communication thereby sparking claims of "hijacking" the frequency. Two meter antennas are very inexpensive and, for simplex, a directional antenna is the preferred configuration anyway while a vertical omni is the preferred "repeater" antenna. Certainly a lot less "expensive" than the constant bickering that this suggestion would foster.
My vote is for, as others have stated (paraphrased), IT AIN'T BROKE SO DON'T F WITH IT!
Tom
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K9MHZ on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
OK, everyone take a deep breath, relax, and cut the sanctimonious rants.

146.52 SSB is not a good idea....I think that horse has been beaten, is dead and buried. Sheez.





 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WA3SKN on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Why pick a frequency with known interference potential when there are so many better choices available? Just doesn't make sense to me!

-Mike.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KA2LIM on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
NO.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W8AAZ on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Around here there aren't exactly overcrowding conditions in any portion of the band for SSB mode, so I would monitor 144.2 in case anyone else is out there. I don't monitor 52 with a multimode rig. I don't think they are as common as the poster thinks they are, certainly SSB capable radios are probably not even 10% of all 2M radios out there. Not in use, but owned. Still, if you only have a vertical antenna, you can probably find like minded people with SSB radios to talk to sometimes.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K0CBA on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
"144.000 to 144.100 is plenty for CW and digi...."

************ W R O N G ***************

You may want to take a look at the regs; 144.000 to 144,100 (and 50.000 to 50.100) Are strictly A-1 emission ONLY!!

Anyone not know what A-1 emission is? Surley it was on the test....

"What is A-1 emission?"
A) The steak sause
B) What the Fonz says
C) On-Off telegraphy
D) First pick on a Chinese restaurant menu

HINT..........
It's "C"
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N2XPM on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Your absolutely correct...The Band Plan works...if it isn't broken, why fix it!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K4RAF on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
There are band plans & then there the rules...

Band plans are there to make the ARRL feel important & relevant, enforcing their "vision" of blatant absurdity & vacancy...

The rules are the rules, as per the FCC...

I'll operate ANYWHERE & ANY WAY I please, as directed by the FCC... I've been confronted by uninformed ops who swear the ARRL plans are the law...

They ARE NOT!!!

'nuf said..!
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KK2DOG on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Bad idea. Any other questions?

Oh, BTW...2-meter FM antennas are generally tuned for 146-148 MHz, and 2-meter SSB antennas are generally tuned for 144-146 MHz. My 2-meter Diamond vertical doesn't like SSB at all. (SWR too high).



Mike KK2DOG
www.hamwave.com
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1CJS on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
>>Band plans are there to make the ARRL feel important & relevant, enforcing their "vision" of blatant absurdity & vacancy...<<

No, they are not. Band plans are simply nationally accepted and practiced policies designed to keep interference from different modes of operation to a minimum...NO MATTER WHO PROPOSED THEM!

>>The rules are the rules, as per the FCC...<<

True. Agreements are also de facto "rules", even though you can't be prosecuted or fined for breaking them.

>>I'll operate ANYWHERE & ANY WAY I please, as directed by the FCC... I've been confronted by uninformed ops who swear the ARRL plans are the law...

They ARE NOT!!!

'nuf said..!<<

You're such a pleasant person--NOT!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by AC5WO on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
SSB on 146.52 MHz is probably a bad idea because SSB looks like noise to receivers set to monitor the FM simplex calling frequency. Unnecessary annoyance when there are many better frequency choices.

If vertically polarized antennas tuned higher in the 2m band lose gain in the 144.1 - 144.3 MHz, I would try a frequency at the upper edge of the 145.8 - 146.0 MHz satellite subband. Maybe 145.995 MHz?
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K8QV on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Why are so many hams so obviously bored with too much time and nothing to do?
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1HC on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Why hasn't Eham just pulled this article considering all the negative comments?
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K5TED on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
"That there should be this lingering infestation of really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given....and I don’t know what more they want....“The only thing left....to do is to work like a third world dictator and just put all these guys in jail.”

- Harry Belafonte on MSNBC

 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KA3OUC on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Norm makes a very good point. 520 should be use to make a contact and only a contact ... and QSY to another freq to whatever mode you would like to work. I know some people out there start getting lost, confused and "Up in Arms" if others start trying different things. Basically they don't like change. These are the same guys that are ALWAYS on the repeater day in and day out ragchewing. Repeaters are for communications that can not be held on simplex. If people like "The Standards" it would be REALLY REALLY nice if they studied the "STANDARD ITU PHONETICS" chart for starters, since most hams like to create their own phonetics. Operating SSB across the 2 meter band is not a bad idea at all and more of us should be doing it now that our radios have that feature anyway. I know that I am going to start doing it. Thanks Norm for giving me a heads up on this one.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by AE6RV on December 14, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
All things considered, I don't understand why FM is still around other than tradition and inertia. Clearly SSB would free up more badly needed spectrum in some areas, and it's not like the old days where the rigs were so poor that 146.520 really meant somewhere in the vicinity of 146.52. Not only that, SSB is greener, in that it takes much less power for the same range of communication.

OTOH, there's certainly a lot that I don't know about VHF propagation with respect to mobiles. For example: what about picket fencing? Antenna polarization shouldn't be an issue as there's no reason SSB repeaters can't remain vertically polarized.

I object to the idea that repeaters should only be used when simplex won't cope, though. In my area, there's little enough 2M traffic as it is. Repeaters, with their high antennas should be the tie that binds a region together; when we're not using our cell phones. =) And come to think of it: I'm not sure how appreciative the SSB crowd would be to opening up sideband contacts to the great unwashed who don't have a KW, a 200 ft tower, and a 20 el beam.

But to the point: should anarchy be the rule of the day and the Band Plan ignored? Most emphatically no. Put the air quotes around "gentlemens' agreement" if you like, but we've got a pretty cozy deal with the FCC, and deliberately causing trouble for ourselves is probably not in anyone's best interests. That's not to mean that we, amateurs, shouldn't address the band plan to see if it's taking us down a road we want to travel on 2M. It can't be that much more expensive to make an HT with sideband instead of FM, and technologies, and related products, do go out of favor from time to time. I can't imagine that the changes to repeaters to go from FM to sideband would be all that onerous.

Well, those are my thoughts. Happy Holidays to one and all from my lowly QTH.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WB4DX on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I suggested a 2m ssb vertical net years ago and was shot down like mig over US airspace. Why are so many unwilling to accept change?
2m vertical ssb is the logical choice for mobile comms because of mounting problems of horizontal mobile antenna, not to mention aesthetics.
I have never had a problem with bandwidth on 2 meters, beam or vertical antenna. Ssb needs to stay where it is but if bandwidth is a problem, make an alternative ssb vertical call ch. close to 146.520.
Problem solved.
Now wouxun, make us an hf / 2m / 220 / 440 all mode rig with remote head for around $500 - $700.
It'll blow the big three out of the water!!
I'll buy 2!
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WB4DX on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Maybe it's time for a band plan amendment?
Hmmm?
Another problem easily solved.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by G3LBS on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
There's an optimum level of stress - too little and there is not enough challenge, too much and strain develops. It's the same with structure like band plans.
If you put something in for goodness sake take out some deadwood.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N5RMS on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I think that it would be about time to migrate all 2 meter and 440 to SSB and SSB repeaters. It is feasible.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K7AAT on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!


No, for far too many reasons, it is NOT feasible. Commercial interests tried this not that many years ago and it never panned out. Narrowband FM proved more realistic and effective than SSB repeaters. Remember the reason we lost much of our 220MHz band? UPS convinced the FCC that they needed the spectrum to establish their new SSB mobile nationwide network of repeaters for their delivery service. After the FCC gave them most of our band, UPS came to realize it was not feasible and went with an 800MHz cellular type (FM) system. Other commercial intersests have tried to market SSB systems too...and they never panned out.

Ed K7AAT
 
Band Plans need stability  
by AI2IA on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
The 2 Meter Band Plan is currently just fine as it is.
Anyone who wishes to operate SSB on 2 Meters knows where to go. 146.520 MHz is not called the "National" simplex calling frequency for no reason. Repeaters are okay, but they are also in a sense special purpose. The band needs a spot where simplex operation can be initiated with confidence that those who can and should operate in the simplex mode are free to do so without other modes interfering.

In fact, simplex operation should be encouraged even more so than SSB on 2 Meters, since all transceivers are capable of FM simplex, but not all transceivers are capable of SSB on 2 Meters.

SSB is a great activity on 2 Meters, but as the Band Plan has established, let's leave a place to encourage the use of simplex uninhibited. Let's encourage the use of simplex, and when you are on a repeater, if you can switch over to simplex, try to do so and leave the repeater for those who need its capabilities at the time.

If you have a rig that can operate 2 Meter SSB, by all means use it as much as possible and get the full enjoyment out of it.

Above all, let's keep the stable environment that the band plan provides. - AI2IA
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by AE6RV on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
" Other commercial intersests have tried to market SSB systems too...and they never panned out."

Ed, would you care to set out some of the issues that would be roadblocks to ham radio? I can see that selective fading and probably other issues would be important to a commercial environment, but I just can't see how it would be a hindrance to hobby communications. I don't get on the repeaters much, but all I've ever heard is nets, stormwatch, and guys wanting company on the road. Sideband would surely serve those needs, wouldn't it? Surely some easy method would come to mind to zero beat the frequency pair. Isn't part of our mandate that of coming up with new technology?
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K7AAT on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!

I'll give you two road blocks right off the top: cost & availability. Have you looked for 2M SSB mobile radios lately? Are there any even available? If you're referring to base station radios with 2M SSB capability have you priced these radios lately? They are prohibitively expensive for most hams, and certainly not practical to install in a vehicle or multiple vehicles. Your judgement is irrational on this issue.

As far as "new technology" goes, SSB is not new...its been around for many decades. If you want "new" then speak of digital technology, D-Star for one.

Ed K7AAT
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KF7PCL on December 15, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Realistically I do not see any harm in using SSB in other portions of the band. The band plan is pretty useless with the low activity level.

Existing vertically polarized resonate antenna can be used on SSB and they will work better higher in the band.

Not a whole lot of advantages other than that though.

I do not really care what people do if as long as they are legal but I think this topic opened a proverbial can of worms as far as the discussion goes.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K9MHZ on December 16, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
>>>>by K7AAT on December 15, 2012
No, for far too many reasons, it is NOT feasible. Commercial interests tried this not that many years ago and it never panned out. Narrowband FM proved more realistic and effective than SSB repeaters. Remember the reason we lost much of our 220MHz band? UPS convinced the FCC that they needed the spectrum to establish their new SSB mobile nationwide network of repeaters for their delivery service. After the FCC gave them most of our band, UPS came to realize it was not feasible and went with an 800MHz cellular type (FM) system. Other commercial intersests have tried to market SSB systems too...and they never panned out.

Ed K7AAT<<<<


Ed, your supporting points aren't factual at all. UPS was due to receive 220-222 MHZ, while we kept 222-225 MHz....that's not "most" of the band. In the time that UPS was waiting for this allocation approval for an enhanced SSB/datalinking system from the FCC, UPS grew weary of the bureaucracy and protracted timing that's so typical of our government run by C students, that vendors were ready to offer NFBM trunking, etc. UPS is a massive company, so this was a golden opportunity for a huge cha-ching for the 800 MHz vendors. THAT is why UPS abandoned the 220 MHz idea. Too, FWIW, 220 MHz during those years was DEAD....UPS, while seen as heavy-handed at the time, was absolutely correct. Very, very little 220 MHz equipment was even available for use back then.

But NZ5L is merely proposing using a vertical cut for 146.52 for SSB point-to-point comm. I didn't see anything mentioned beyond that, so he's proposing something that's very "feasible", and in fact very simple....just select SSB on your mode switch.

But yes, the biggest and most compelling thing to ask is "why"? Band plans, while not statutory, are a self-regulating guide that is intended to keep things orderly. For all of the League-haters who'd scoff at the idea....do you really want polyester-wearing government employees writing our band plans into regulation?
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1CJS on December 16, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
It is really not feasible--because of one thing. FM and SSB just isn't compatible, and the use of 146.52 for a national FM calling channel is accepted by 98 percent or more of the hams out there. SSBers would scream blue murder if FMers suddenly started to use 144.2--and you know it!

So just for the sake of a few malcontents who aren't satisfied with the current band plan, there is the suggestion to trash it and produce anarchy on the 2 meter airwaves? Do it and soon after, ALL band plans will be scrapped--and NOBODY will be able to call for someone to talk to, they won't know where.

If you really want to kill this hobby, that is the way to do it.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by NZ5L on December 16, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Well, if nothing else, the post seems to verify that hams are, in the main, a conservative bunch.
Just remember that a sizable number of very well-equipped AMers were dragged into use of SSB kicking and screaming back in the late 50s and 60s. Most of them felt the same: "It ain't broke-----"
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K9MHZ on December 16, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
And maybe in your defense a bit, at least you're suggesting utilization. The UPS/220 MHz matter happened precisely because there was no utilization of that band at the time.

Best,
Brad, K9MHZ


 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N4KZ on December 16, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
As a longtime 2 meter weak signal op, the conventional wisdom is that I would dislike this proposal. The truth is you suggested the wrong frequency -- the national 2 meter FM simplex calling frequency is not the right spot on the dial -- but you presented an interesting idea if one sees the bigger picture.

Under the calls WB8TOB, KJ8S, WE4K and N4KZ, I began operating 2 meter SSB and CW in the mid-1970s. I have worked a lot of states from Kentucky, a ton of grid squares, some EME and MS and so on. But it always surprised me that while operating HF and talking about my 2 meter weak-signal experiences that so many hams seemed unaware that one could make 1,000 mile contacts on 2 meters under the right circumstances -- despite the many books and magazine articles that have been written about this over the years. In the past, some 2m weak signal ops tried to organize simplex SSB nets using vertical polarization in hopes it would attract some Fm ops to the SSB side. But they placed those nets down in the SSB part of the band and they just failed to attract very many ops.

Pick another simplex frequency in the FM portion. Operating SSB on 146.52 is probably a bad idea for several reasons but there are unused simplex frequencies elsewhere. I like the idea of exposing FM ops to SSB where they hang out. It just might work better than earlier efforts.

Yes, I know such would go against the recommended band plan but a band plan is a strong suggestion but not FCC regulation. And with 2m being so lightly used in many regions, I see no harm.

I used to get frustrated when I would ask a ham if he or she had ever listened in the SSB part of 2m meters only to be told, "Yes, I listened down there once, didn't hear anything and figured it was a waste of time."

Well, without a horizontally polarized antenna and a good preamp, it was a waste of time. But hams need to understand that when it comes to weak signals, SSB is so much better than FM on VHF/UHF. FM has the better signal to noise ratio when signals are strong but as they weaken, SSB takes over and really extends one's simplex range considerably.

There are a lot of IC-706s, FT-857s and similar rigs out there going under-utilized because their owners have never really tried SSB on 2 meters. Doing a little vertically polarized SSB on a lightly used simplex frequency would harm little and just might expose some hams to a new facet of VHF and keep them interested. And if that means going against a band plan -- when the chance of harm to anyone is mininal -- then so be it.

Find a different frequency and try it.

73, N4KZ
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W4AMP on December 17, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
There is a band plan for a reason. Would you be as receptive if the FM ops were calling on 144.200?
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N8RAT on December 17, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Stick to the band plan, otherwise, why have it?
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WU5E on December 17, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I think this is a bad idea. The BAND PLAN calls for 2m SSB calling freq is 144.200. Nets should not be run on 146.52.

There is a band plan use it.

Jim
WU5E
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KE4ZHN on December 18, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Good grief. What next?
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W1LVL on December 18, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Most 2 Meter verticals work ok on the lower end of 2 meters. Have made many contacts on 14.200 SSB with a dual band mobile antenna.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by VE3ES on December 18, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
SSB on 146.520. Stupid is as stupid does.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KB8RTZ on December 18, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Two things come to mind when I review the band plans published by both the ARRL and ICOM:

1. My interpretation of the ARRL band plan is that SSB is a valid mode from 144.10-144.275, from 144.90-145.10 (explicitly states weak signal and FM simplex noting that 145.01, 145.03, 145.05, 145.07, 145.09 are widely used for packet), and from 145.50-145.80 (explicitly states miscellaneous and experimental modes).

2. Unless ICOM is misleading the amateur radio world, my interpretation is that SSB is a valid mode on virtually all of 2m except in the CW subband.

Nowhere in either band plan does it explicitly state "NO SSB" in the FM subbands, however, one of the two band plans explicitly states "NO FM" in the SSB subband.

oh, and

3. CW is a valid mode on all frequencies of every band. We all forgot about that, didn't we?

Relax, everyone. Norman only said make a contact on 146.52, not occupy 146.52 for a conversation or roundtable.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KM3F on December 18, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
What does an FM station do when he needs to use 146.520 FM and cannot even request use of the frequency due to not being able to be heard or understood by stations on SSB mode?
Surely you could move the local SSB effort up or down far enough without the SWR issue and creating discord that surely will develope in time.
While I don't agree with you, you can still legally do this as long are you select a frequency that is not part of a repeater pair within range.
Still better, go down in the SSB portion and use a Halo antenna for omni direction use and be even better.
I know where you are and could make contact if you go horizonatal with an antenna and were close to 100 miles apart, to boot.
As it is , I can get into Canada from near Allentown Pa. on 100 watts and a beam.
If I were to do SSB for any length of time in the FM agreed areas, I would get a hard time over it.
Good luck.
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K9MHZ on December 19, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
ZHN....dittos.

Sheez what a long, boring and useless thread.

 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K1CJS on December 20, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
"Relax, everyone. Norman only said make a contact on 146.52, not occupy 146.52 for a conversation or roundtable."

No, don't relax. Even using the FM calling channel to make a contact on SSB could possibly wipe out others that are using the frequency for contacts--far beyond the range of most FM transceivers.

It's an idea from someone who is one of two things--either seeing how much he can stir the pot and what comes to the surface, or a malcontent that thinks he can do as he pleases--and to h*ll with everyone else.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K2TV on December 23, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
SSB on two meters belongs down in the weak signal subband. 144.200 has been the traditional SSB calling frequency. Not adhering to the established band plan is just being rude and those operating FM may not even know you are there and key up right on top of a SSB station with even realizing it. Weak signal operators have traditionally used horizontal polarization because it provides better local noise immunity than vertical polarization.

73 Bob K2TV
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WA1UFO on December 24, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I live in the White Mountains in NH near Mount Washington and 146.52 is a frequency used for climbers and mountaineers to use when needed with the FM mode. Also, it is used for SOTA as well. SSB has plenty of room in the lower part of the band. Since we have some of the world's worse weather up in the Presidentials, the frequency is used with handie talkies in most cases. The Rockies are higher but our WX can be worse. I consider this ill advised. 73s to all es gud DX!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K6SPY on December 25, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
No.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by WR0F on December 25, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
We have run ssb mobile and fixed station on 144.200 calling frequency for over 25 years here in Missouri EM29 Grid Square.
We use stacked loops horizontal polarity mobile and have made contacts running 200 watts when E skip and Tropo openings have happened as far as the state of Maine in our car .
The calling frequency in the quiet part of the band 144.200 +- this would not have been possible in the FM section of the band @ 146.52 .
What we are basically saying is to work weak signal it takes a combination of things to lineup.We think 500+ miles while others think 30 - 50 miles is very good on weak signal .
The 2m ssb beam antennas used today are optimized for the lower end of 2 meters for maximum gain for not only ssb but weak signal moon bounce on cw . Horizontal polarity not vertical is used to get rid of lots of manmade noise .
The way I see it keeping the farthest away in frequency from FM repeaters or Simplex FM frequencies increases our chances of catching that rare grid square or station hundereds of miles away.
I run IC 7000 in our cars and have the calling freq programed in as 144.200 usb in memory.
The way I see it with all the radios that are out today with 2m ssb capabilities we should have more action going during the spring / summer openings .I can tell you back in the early 80's 10 watt ssb mobiles were selling new for almost 500-600.00 today you can buy a radio with HF 6M 144 + 430-450 for less than $1000.00. Check out 144.200 in the Spring
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N4UED on December 26, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
Have fun using ssb on 52 . There are more analog repeaters , than their are hams to use them . You can ride for miles and never hear anyone on 52 . I say go for it . It might wake the band up .
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by W9WY on December 27, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
I vote to use the existing 2 meter SSB calling frequency which is 144.200. We have band plans to help eliminate interference amoung modes. Use it.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by K3NRX on December 29, 2012 Mail this to a friend!
In Short, NO! In Long, I really wish that we would stop dreaming up topics for the sake of dreaming up topics....This is what happens when we become board, and there are no sunspots.....SSB on .52....Paleez!....

V
KA3NRX

 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KG4CLD on January 3, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"One reason to operate SSB on 146.52 is that you probably already have your antenna resonant there and not so resonant on 144.200MHz."

I use a separate antenna for SSB. It's a horizontal beam and is resonant on 144.200. I like having separate antennas.

Another idea would be to use an antenna tuner if you can't have two antennas..
 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KB6QXM on January 3, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
SSB on 146.52-No leave that for FM. Just define other SSB calling frequencies. Very little people use 2 meters anymore, not like it used to be. The repeaters are there, just noone uses them. 220 is even worse.

I remember when there was a 24/7 linking system on 2 meters. That was a lot of fun. Linking only happens when the EmComm people want to test the system.

I seldom even hear anyone on 146.52 anymore.

Shame
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N2OBM on January 3, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I give you credit for trying to think up 'new' ideas.

It would seem you identified a local 'down turn' of utilization of 652 in your area, and thought up of an alternative use to, I assume, create activity/ interest. God bless you for trying.

And we as amateurs should be 'progressive' and open to 'new' ideas, or heck, re-hash old ideas to hopefully inspire someone to invent the next sliced bread (slight reference to the Amateur's Code).

And when was the last (verifiable) consensus of ALL amateurs as to what CURRENT 2 meter trends, interest and usage should be?

*SLAP, SLAP, SLAP*....OH...what the hell was I thinking...past practice ALWAYS makes everything right....we've always done it that way....GOD forbid you suggest that we deviate from the master plan!

Don't you remember the repeater wars of the 50s...the 60s...the packet vs. FM wars of the 70s....and the enduring age of the 'vanity repeater'? (many of which are silent; the number of listings in the ARRL repeater directory will not be a useful argument of 'occupancy')

I can't even fathom you suggested such a perverse concept. Our 'self-regulating' regulators will shun you forever!

And may the wrath of a thousand repeater coordinators, who have no say in 'simplex sub-bands', (and who can be any amateur 'recognized' by ??? percent of the 'local' community; check the regs...vague for a reason) spam your inbox!

I mean, really...there is only 20 to 30 dB difference in vertical to horizontal separation. The fact I 'cross talked' all the time, by design, to attenuate static....well damn you to suggest such a thing! And on SSB even....did you hit your head?

And meanwhile, back at the ranch....anyone hear of digital Babylon? How about introducing more modes so there is ZERO interoperability!

The bottom line....The folks that truly love this radio service better step up and plan for adaptive utilization of what we have, and spark interest into the 'Tech' or 'appliance operator' crowd to provoke 'knowledge growth' and move beyond the 'single mode' scope of use. And those of you that just outright SLAMMED this guy for trying....what is your brilliant idea? Really? Get out from under the rock...read the news, subscribe to a few online trade magazines like Mission Critical and look between the lines.

SPECTRUM = MONEY

We, as a service, need to allow flexibility for the sake of spawning new ideas...when FirstNet comes to fruition...one of our basic tenants...one of our mission statements...becomes null.

What is your plan?



 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KB8DNS on January 4, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
We should always adhere to band plans as a "Gentleman's Agreement".
With that said the FCC band plan allows SSB on 146.52 but it would make waves in most areas. On a similar note, I use AM on two meters but I stay away from well used frequencies.
And there is always a chance of forgetting what mode you are on and transmit SSB on your local repeater, that always gets some attention!

73 Rod KB8DNS
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KA8BYU on January 6, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
no way on .52 for ssb, there is an area of the 2m band set up for ssb, use it.
just because you can operate any mode in any area does not mean that you should, band plans exist for a reason, to keep interference to a minimum, and to make the hobby enjoyable for all operators.
The FCC should not have to regulate every aspect of this hobby we should be able to abide by the agreements already in place. We are allowed lots of leeway by the FCC in this hobby lets not abuse it.
i've worked 2m ssb and i used a 4 element horizontal beam when i lived in ohio and was able to work into michigan, pa, in, and into canada with a yaesu ft 221r running 12 watts pep.
if you are going to do it, do it right and do it according to established practice
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N9AMI on January 8, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Absolutely Not! FM only..
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KT6KT on January 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
BAD IDEA!
The FM operators on "52" want SSB on the frequency as much as weak signal operators want local FM ragchew on 144.200 MHz.
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KG4CLD on January 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I really don't think moving SSB up to 146.520 MHz will do anything for the hobby except give people something new to argue about!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by AI8O on January 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I'm w-a-a-a-y out here in the sticks of NC.

<<<<<<< ANY activity on 146.52 (FM, AM, SSB, QPSK. Spark, anything) would be welcome.>>>>>

Band plan or not, I haven't had an unscheduled, unplanned 2m simplex qso in years.

Sometimes, I call CQ on 145.52, but I have never gotten a response on calls from my home station.
Once, years ago, when I was driving in NE Ohio, I actually logged into net on 146.52 FM near Akron,Ohio. But in my 29 years of hamming; thats it!

I have 146.52, 146.46, and 147.58 plugged into my scanlist but the only thing I occasionally hear are "freebander" truck drivers using 147.58 while passing thru the area on the superhighway.

Again, let me reiterate: activity on 2m Simplex is so low that:

<<<<<<< ANY activity on 146.52 would be welcome.>>>>>
Dan
AI8O


 
RE: 2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KG4CLD on January 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Dan, all I can say is wow to no activity where you live. Where I live there are many repeaters (too many if you ask me)and a few simplex groups. I am very active on 2-meter simplex. In fact the radio I use is a "Clegg FM-28" 2-meter mobile which doesn't even have built-in PL tones! I can only imagine that you're far enough away from urban noise and interference that your HF reception must be crystal clear. Don't know if I'd trade that for having lots of locals to talk to!

73 de KG4CLD-Dave
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by N4PGW on January 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
146.52 is probably the most foolish place to operate 2 meter side-band second only to the input of the most popular repeater in the state! 146.52 is probably the single most listened to 2 meter simplex frequency in this country and probably 90% of the users are on FM only rigs.

I like the idea of having an upper band SSB frequency, however, it will be difficult, at best, to choose single nation-wide calling frequency for it.

If you want to gather a group to operate SSB in the upper portion of the band, start by finding an area in the simplex portions that is not being used. Encourage locals to join you there, and let the word spread out to neighboring towns and clubs.

I plan to play with this. What I expect will happen is that I will first generate interest locally and then it will spread to neighboring towns where my friends and I have other contacts. Those towns will build interest and eventually it will continue to grow. Eventually, there may be several SSB frequencies in the upper band. We may even have to migrate to a different frequency. However, with SSB using only a small portion of what an FM signal uses, we can have many frequencies in the same amount of space.

I am guessing that as the interest grows over great distances that some users will start moving to the lower bands and at the same time identifying safe frequencies for SSB in the upper portion to communicate longer distances.

Some people don't like change and they don't like hypothetically being interfered with, even when in reality it doesn't interfere with them, so there will be opposition.

Let's try it. But, let's be courteous about it and

LET'S HAVE FUN!!!!!
 
2-Meter SSB on 146.52?  
by KC8RWR on January 21, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I'm not sold on the idea of mixing modes on a calling frequency. The pressence of SSB noise as it comes out of an FM receiver could encourage anyone monitoring FM simplex to stop. I'm not sure what FM sounds like in a receiver made for SSB but maybe the same principle applies?

I do appreciate the idea that ones antennas might already be tuned for 146.520. Maybe this is a good argument for bandplans where all the simplex ranges, FM, SSB and even AM are placed next to one another. I suppose they could even share one simplex sub-band but let's keep the calling frequencies separate. They could be near one another but not the same.

As for all the complaints about ragchewing on the calling frequencies... If monitoring is down as much as people complain that it is then those advocating that people talking there at least means someone is tuned to the frequency have a valid point.

Maybe.. people ragchewing on simplex calling frequencies just need to pause more between transmissions giving others a chance to break in? Then again, I was taught that this was something we should do on EVERY frequency.

Another thought, if you think nobody monitors a calling frequency because no-one answers when you put out your call sign or when you call CQ maybe that isn't what people are monitoring for? If somebody keeps a receiver going in case there is an emergency that doesn't mean they are free to make a contact or ragchew. Perhaps just because CQ doesn't get a response doesn't mean SOS won't either. (Please do not test this theory unless you really are in an emergency!)

I suppose that idea can apply to your favorite quiet repeater too.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Operating Articles
Technician Licensees -- Why Not Try Low Power HF CW?