More Frequencies for Hams
A Voss (N9RGX)
on
June 11, 2004
View comments about this article!
After reading many article posted about new license classes or changing license privileges, no-codes on HF and know-codes on HF a nagging question comes to mind. Why doesn't the FCC give all citizens' bands to hams? No I'm not talking about eliminating CB, GMRS, MURS, FRS, Lowfers or Midfers but rather why doesn't the FCC make it so that any licensed Amateur Radio Operator may operate on those frequencies / bands AS A LICENSED AMATEUR?
The FCC could grant co-Primary or even Secondary allocation to the existing services with little or no work. Hams could still be required to follow the same power and mode restrictions, however they would also be required to identify and follow good amateur practice.
The point being is that many hams do have friends who do not yet have ham tickets with whom they could communicate while giving an example of what ham radio is all about. Also many times ham radio operators are involved in emergency service drills (or the real thing!) Where they need to be in communication with people who are not licensed in the Amateur Service. This would allow ham operators to be come more inter-operable when needed and also to act as a pool of skilled operators as an example to the other services.
The FCC should also allow licensed Amateur Radio Operators to use their own equipment that is not normally type-approved for use in those bands as they would be type-approved for the Amateur Service -- Provided the Amateur Station follows power and mode restrictions on those bands.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Read FCC Part 97.1 and FCC Part 95.1. Then you'll know the answer. They have different purposes.
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
(hasn't this already be discussed???)
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N5XM on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It would be very different if we used the bands we have. Last evening I had my modest beam pointed about 20 degrees East of North when I got a 599 call from a w6. I didn't need to bring the beam around, but I did. Everybody seems to think the bands are awful, and they aren't great, but here I am getting a strong, armchair copyable signal nearly 120 degrees off the front of my beam. What I am getting at is that most nights I send CQ over and over and very few are there. I'm generally working DX better than the domestic ragchew I love so much. Hams see lousy Solar numbers and don't even try to get on the air. Folks assume they can't make any contacts so they don't even turn the rig on. There are people out there who want contacts even though it's near solar minimum. I have an amp, but it only comes on for DX. We need to get to know each other better, so get on the air! Then we'll talk about more space. I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion, but I don't agree with it. Richard, n5xm
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KX2S on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Do you have nothing more to do then post this kind of CR*P
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NJ1K on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't believe there is any regulation against licensed hams working on the CB, FRS, GMRS bands... If you want to play on those bands, by all means, go right ahead... I believe you may even ID with your ham call sign if you want to... Please feel free to do so... BUT, you MUST use type accepted equipment on those bands... Ham radio equipment is NOT type accepted for any band....
As for me, well, you won't likely find me on those bands... There is no need for a self-induced headache....
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K0EX on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. Voss said, "The point being is that many hams do have friends who do not yet have ham tickets..."
Let them wait a little longer. Soon, there'll be nothing more to obtaining a HAM ticket than to fill-out an application at a website: instant callsign and instant privileges.
"To hell in a hand-cart" doesn't adequately describe what's happened to HAM radio in the 30yrs I've been licensed.
-Mark
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KR4BD on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can you say INTERFERENCE!
If you think this is a good idea, why not let hams operate on the Police frequencies and... allow the firemen to operate on the aircraft frequencies... and your local taxi driver on the ham frequencies and...on and on and on.
We must maintain some sort of order and by means of frequency allocation for the various services. Otherwise, chaos would be the result.
Tom, KR4BD
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AB0RE on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I understand your idea and agree wholeheartedly that the MURS/FRS/CB bands could use some more professional operators. And you're probably right that it'd also bring new people over to the ham bands.
That being said, I don't think I'd ever be crazy enough to use my callsign on these bands. Because of the turf wars and little games played on these bands I could see somebody else making it personal and looking up my callsign on the FCC database. I've already got enough to worry about.
Thanks for thinking outside the box. Nevermind the OM who think everybody else's ideas are bad. :-)
73,
Dan / ABØRE
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would anyone want to be subjected to CB?
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K0RGR on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I have found FRS to be somewhat useful, though at large events in metro areas, the FRS sounds too much like CB. But it's not ham radio, and it's not meant to be.
Amateur Radio is the only place where you should be making casual 'hobby' contacts over the air.
Indeed, ham radio has always experienced the 'summer doldrums' when a large percentage of the on-air population seems to disappear, and this year is no exception - 20 meters is open all night, but very quiet now. We need to encourage people to get on the ham bands!
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AD7DB on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sorry, I don't understand. You mean you think the ham bands are all used up so you want us to move to MURS, FRS, etc?
Technically speaking, we hams have an infinite allocation of frequencies, if you go high enough... something like 300 GHz and up, I think.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K2WH on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excuse me, but hams do not need permission to use the other frequencies. Just do it. If that's what you want to do. Other than that, I don't see the reason for this question.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N7UQA on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use the CB band from time to time. The group I talk to are a bunch of local SSB operators who for the most part, conduct them selves in a civil manner, sometimes better than some of the so called “operators” that can be found on the 75/80 meter band. A number of them have shown an interest in becoming hams, so I generally offer myself to elmer them if they wish. I used to talk with these guys before I became a ham, so I have been encouraging them to become hams as well. And of course I don't use a HF rig on 11 meters, the radio of choice is an old Realistic TRC-450 SSB rig with a Turner Super Sidekick.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W5HTW on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, Good God -- another person who has no inkling what ham radio is about. Yet "him are one."
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KA5N on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As Pogo said "We have met the enemy and they is us."
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W0FM on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can use the CB frequencies now. The FCC doesn't need to change anything. By a CB radio. Make up a "handle". You're there.
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N9RGX on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading your comments I guess it's beyond most of you to realize this would be a way to get more ham frequencies.
I see many of you only skimmed what I wrote. I know we can all operate on those bands as they are now, I want the FCC to allow Amateur Radio Operators to be able to operate on those bands using their FCC license as granted in the Amateur Service.
Being Able to Identify your beacon on the VLF license-free band with your Ham Callsign.
To make a move on Reclaiming the 11-meter band for Ham Radio (If you haven't noticed CB use has declined sharply)
I can see some Hams are so stuck up, they'd rather fade into oblivion in what is actually quite an obscure hobby rather than even try to take the first steps in making their hobby more noticeable to people of similar interests.
THINK
You who are so much better than the 11-meter CB band. --- 11 meters was once a ham band. with the decline in CB use, this is one way we could reclaime that band. Even if only as a Secondary or co-primary user. If every CBer stoped using the 11-Meter CB Band, would it still be tainted to you? What is wrong with you people?
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those services with no license or ID requirement (CBRS, MURS, FRS), why can't we use our call signs to identify ourselves. I have and will continue to do so until told otherwise. I still use the CB call sign I was assigned too for my wife to use as a ID (we do have handles on CB).
The FCC recommended the continued use of the discontinued call signs on CB just to provide a traceable ID. It would seem to reason that it would be acceptable to use an Amateur Radio call sign in these services since no license is required and no identification is specified. The operator would still be bound by the rules of the particular service and be required to use equipment certified for use.
Personally, I have used whatever equipment was on hand in the event of emergencies. I was the City Civil Defense/Emergency Management Communications Officer and RACES operator for over 20 years. It would be foolish to cast aside anyone with equipment that could provide a service to the community in an emergency. The ARRL has many interoperability agreements with various service organizations outside of the Amateur Radio Service. It is entirely wrong to be-little any service that could save a life in time of crisis.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NI0C on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would we want eleven meters when we have adequate allocations in the 12m and 10m bands ?
This "article" conveys little information other than the author's opinion concerning an issue of obscure interest or relevance. I wouldn't mind seeing this in the "Speakout" section of eHam; however it doesn't belong in the "Articles" section.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N9RGX on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE1X wrote: "For those services with no license or ID requirement (CBRS, MURS, FRS, Lowfers, Midfers and Hifers, MURS, etc.), why can't we use our call signs to identify ourselves. I have and will continue to do so until told otherwise. I still use the CB call sign I was assigned too for my wife to use as a ID"
Because it is not legal to do so. If you have an old CB license you can still use it, however If you use your ham callsign on those bands you are operating illegally since you as a hame are not licensed to operate on those frequencies. The FCC has suggested that people ID on CB by using the letter K followed by their initials then followed by their zipcode to ID on CB (but IDing is not required).
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I won't lambast the idea, but I also think it's not very good and would only lead to abuse and misuse.
Even if the FCC changed the rules so amateur equipment could be used on these public service bands, relying on hams or anyone else to restrict equipment to be used within the power and/or antenna limits of these services is too tricky. I'm sure these services are already abused by some using excessive power and such, and adding hams to the mix is asking for trouble.
If hams want to use these bands, we already can just by buying and using the proper equipment for them.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think it would be a good idea. Those bands and users need to be protected from the likes of us.
Seriously, think about it. They use radios with channels, not VFOs, and low power limitations to put everyone on an even footing. Imagine a ham coming in, putting his VFO midway between channels, and pumping out 1.5 KW. Not fair to the current users of that particular service is it?
Plus, right now we are more than ready to nail people to the wall when they encroach on ham radio's turf. If we can go play on theirs, why can't they come in on ours? It would set a really bad precendent.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W2DUG on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't believe the general dismissal of your proposal is due to being stuck-up, but rather due to the fact that it is not a well-reasoned proposal.
Hams could recruit on the CB bands any time they want (and to some extent they probably already do). It is not clear how you would make the distinction between amateurs operating on those bands versus unlicensed users. Are you proposing that hams are allowed to use modified amateur equipment on those bands? Are you proposing that hams be allowed to operate with higher power levels more in line with the ham bands?
It is also not clear what benefit is gained by using ham callsigns on unlicensed bands. Simply stating that you are a ham probably achieves the same goal, which would be to stimulate conversation regarding how one might become a ham (i.e., recruiting).
It is also not clear why hams need the 11m band considering nearby allocations and current usage patterns.
Basically, you've not presented a compelling rationale for your proposal, so don't expect much support.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K3UD on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a reminder, as I have posted this a few times.
Back when CB was originally conceived by the FCC in the immediate post WW2 era, The ARRL's K B Warner editorialized in QST the opinion that there should be a way for hams and the new CBers to communicate with each other.
His reasons were based on disaster communications where he thought such a cooperative arrangement might be benificial to the public good.
Back when CB started, the allocation was up in the 460 mhz area and equipment that worked reliably was difficult to obtain. This was the reason that CB in its earliest form, never really caught on, and the link to communications between the services was never established.
The familiar Class D 27 mhz service began in 1958 and there have been periodic calls for ham and CB cooperation since the CB disaster response organization REACT has been established. (it this even still viable?)
This is not a new idea, but IF (a big if) Mr. Warner's reasons have merit today, we might not want to dismiss it out of hand.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K7VO on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9RGX:
I did read what you wrote. I found ZERO merit in it. DO we need more ham bands? Let's see:
160m
80m
60m
40m
30m
20m
17m
15m
12m
10m
6m
2m
1.25m
70cm
33cm
23cm
13cm
By my count, on MF, HF, VHF, and UHF we have 17 bands, with even more up on SHF and above. Tell me, do you use all 17 bands now? In all possible modes? Do you even know what kind of activity exists on each of these bands?
First let us hams use what we have. If we don't use our bands we will most surely lose them. I see no point whatsoever in operating CB, nor would these become more "ham bands" since the unlicensed and unskilled users will still be there. Of course, we have our share of unskilled users who lack knowledge. It sounds like you, the author, could become a bit more knowledgeable about the resources we have as hams.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think we need to operate more on our bands first before we look at others. Yes, that includes turning off the computer, turning the rig on and either picking up that mic or pounding that brass (ok.. digital too)
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> It would be foolish to cast aside anyone with equipment that could provide a service to the community in an emergency. <<<
This is the main reason why my station is FCC type acceptance equipped for FRS (Pryme), GMRS (Pryme), MURS (Motorola), and CB (Realistic), operation in addition to my regular ham station gear.
I also use a hybrid gas and solar powered emergency backup system for this equipment.
The emergency station backup system can be built from plans from my website:
http://www.angelfire.com/on/cbushell/solar/solar1.html
73
Charles - KC8VWM / WPSP389 / XM421032
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WR8D on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ref N9RGX: Whats wrong with us? In my case i live in an area full of extra class cbers. They ran illegal on cb and still do. They are even worse on the hambands. You can't belong to an amateur radio club around here anymore, they've all turned into cb meetings. They even call each other by their cb handles in the meetings. I don't know or care at all about those other services you mentioned but cb around here is pure filth. What true respecting ham would want to have himself associated with that? Someone else up the thread mentioned 75/80 meters. We've always had weirdo's. Though its gotten much worse in recents years since ole bubba started getting his amateur license and coming to our ranks from the dregs of cbers. Sure there's nice folks there. The nice ones though don't seem to be the ones wanting to get a ham license here locally.
Just my 2 cents:
73, John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9RGX wrote,
"I see many of you only skimmed what I wrote. I know we can all operate on those bands as they are now, I want the FCC to allow Amateur Radio Operators to be able to operate on those bands using their FCC license as granted in the Amateur Service. "
I did read your article. Did you read 95.1 and do you remember what's in 97.1?
The two services are incompatible.
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's beyond caricature. A hopeless cause. Print a retraction and apologize to the group.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by G0GQK on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many radio amateurs in Europe would be pleased if our fellow hams in the US could be granted the use of 70 Mhz. Seventy megahertz, known as "the friendly band" was known a few years ago as a British only band, but in the last 12 months there are many new countries now able to use this band.
Why not ask your friendly FCC ?
73, Mel
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AI3W on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>BUT, you MUST use type accepted equipment on those >bands... Ham radio equipment is NOT type accepted for >any band....
Forgive my ignorance but....
What about these RCI Ranger radios that are touted as 10, 11, and 12 meters? Not that I own one or ever want one, but was wondering since they would fall under this category, WHY is the FCC allowing them to be openly sold with the capability of 12 meters in them????
73 DE AI3W, Rick
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What the author is suggesting is not possible. It is not needed either. All the radio services are incompatible with each other. They are each governed by their own separate set of rules and regs. Hams can already operate on CB, FRS and MURS without a license. We have to use the proper FCC certified equipment for these services. For GMRS, we would need to apply for a license and still use the proper FCC certified equipment for it. Having a ham license never has and never will give us Carte Blanche in other services while using our ham gear. Ham gear is not permitted in other services due to the more rigid tolerances and specs in the other services. If we want to cross the line and make ourselves compatible in other services, we must play by the rules in each of the other services. There is nothing wrong with a ham doing em comm to be equipped for CB, MURS and FRS. That way, hams can communicate with non-hams. But the services still have to remain separate. If the FCC received a proposal on this, I think they would have a good laugh and then dismiss it.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by EXPAT on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Jesus, it sure ain´t Gordon West around here! I mean, he is a little too upbeat, but are you guys all drunk or what? A man gives his opinion on the internet and you jump on top like a bunch of prison guards in Iraq...a free country (I wish it were) means TOLERANCE, morons, if you have a different opinion then put your argument forth reasonably and politely. Indeed...Randy
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by AI3W on June 11, 2004:
"What about these RCI Ranger radios that are touted as 10, 11, and 12 meters? Not that I own one or ever want one, but was wondering since they would fall under this category, WHY is the FCC allowing them to be openly sold with the capability of 12 meters in them????"
The RCI 2950 is not legal for CB. It is, however legal for amateur use. As hams, we can legally use a 2950 on 10 and 12m. If a ham used a 2950 on 11m, that ham would be in violation of Part 95. Fact is, CBers who use RCI 2950 on CB are in violation of Part 95.
These radios are perfectly legal for use by amateurs on amateur bands here in the United States. Ranger gets away with the easy mod for 11m by stipulating that such operation is for "export" use only. It's a loophole. IMO, the FCC should have forced Ranger to come up with an unmodifiable 2950, just as their 5054DX is unmodifiable. Then we wouldn't be having so much grief with 10 and 12m incursions by 11m scofflaws.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by M5MDH on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Shouldn't we make more use of the frequencies that we already have? Judging by some of the comments on the subject proves that amateur radio is dying a slow death.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AB2RC on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Many radio amateurs in Europe would be pleased if our fellow hams in the US could be granted the use of 70 Mhz."
Unfortunately your 4m band (70.00 - 70.50 MHz) falls within the bandwidth of out broadcast TV channel 4 (66-72 MHz)
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N6AJR on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
cb is supposed to be used for local communications by regular folks, and it is illegal to talk more than 250 miles on a CB.
FRS is set up for familys to keep in touch with each other , up to a mile or so, like when usung 2 cars or when you turn the kids loose at Disneyland. short range com..
Ham.. well we know about Ham radios.
so I do use frs when traveling with non ham family and friends, and 2 meters when with other hams.. and have even been known to say hi on a CB rig now and then, but I live on the ham bands.
That is why they are what they are and you need type accepted rigs to operate on thos other bands.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K1MVP on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just wait a couple of years, after the "new" restru-
turing proposals are approved by the FCC, you won`t
be able to tell the difference between amateur radio
and these other services, such as CB, FRS, and GMRS.
All the services will be "streamlined" into one, as
a "multi-purpose" no test required permit.
I just can`t wait.
73`s, K1MVP
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> If a ham used a (RANGER) 2950 on 11m, that ham would be in violation of Part 95.<<<
If a ham actually used that junk on the ham bands, even legally, they would be violating thyself.
Charles- KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K7UND on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am always amazed at how many of you quickly turn into absolute jerks when the word "CB" or "11 meters" gets mentioned. Nobody said you had to "Subject yourself" to CB. I myself also got away from the CB due to the language that was used, and for the fact if my kids were in the car I had to turn it off. HOWEVER and this is a big HOWEVER. There are times that during a small emergency that you can learn more on the CB than on the HAM anyday. Just recently on my way home there was a horrible wreck and it had traffic backed up for 2 hours. In scanning the 2 meter band in my truck for chatter about what was going on, I heard nothing but folks talking about "How much better they felt now they are using better back pills". When turning on the CB in my truck (Yes, I still have one in my truck, so please don't hate me!!!!) I quickly learned of a detour, and found out what had happend to begin with. I really wish folks would just accept the fact that the CB is just another communications mode and for some it is fitting and for others it is not. But, don't just jump on somebody because they use or have questions about it. Who knows, they may be the next new HAM. I know I was!
Chris
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WR8D on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris its like this honestly. Every action has a reaction. Many of those guys came to the hambands and we tried to elmer them. Most, not all but most act like they already know more about amateur radio than the oldest ham that just died. You can talk till you're blue in the face to one of these people and it goes in one ear and out the other. Many of us have had such bad experiances with these guys we're just sick of it. Many will come to the hambands get a license do the mars mod on their gear and then sit on a cb channel with their old cb buddies bragging that they are ham operators. Many of us have earned the right to be called jerks where it comes to a damn cber with a ham license. Sorry but thats just the way it is.
73
John, WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD5OWO on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have A TON of points to make.. first off let me say that is is a horrible idea to mix what we have has amateur radio operators with CB/FRS/GMRS/MURS...
Here are my reasons:
1. We have PLENTY of bands to get on, bands that IF they are not used, MIGHT be taken from us.. lets get those bands active, and if you want to talk to you old CB buddies, get them to get their license..
2. Saying ALL CB radio operators are not good people is a sterotype I am sure many of you have heard, and some of you might believe that ALL CB radio operators are not good. My dad was a CB operator in 70's he had a handel, and he enjoyed talking to people, he used legal equipment, with legal power, and ragchewed with people, like he does now on HF has a licensed amateur radio operator with his general class license working on his extra.
3. In some areas are 2 meter repeaters are starting to sound like CB radio, but I don't think that is because CBers are getting their ham tickets, I just think generally people are beginning to have a disregard for rules, and the choice of words have changed for people over time. I follow the rules, but I am not going to go whining to the FCC when someone says "We have all that Damned QRM on 80". I was in LA, and I heard things on the radio that shocked me, the other night locally I turned off my radio after I hear guys talking about picking up women at a local bar. These are things that I don't agree belong on the radio.. Then again there are more Extra class hams on 75/80 I have heard that are sick people, these are older guys, that have had their tickets for quite some time, and the guys I heard the other night on 2 meteres have been hams for 15 or 20 years now. The new hams are not the ones we must fear.
4. All of this gets to the older hams blaming restructering on the bands becoming filthy, but its not the No-Code techs who are causing the problems, they are the ones following the rules, and who understand the rules..
Personally Here is the way I think it should go:
Tech- 35 question test
General- 40 question test
Extra- 55 Question Test
That would up the questions for general and extra at about 5 questions, and maybe 20-40 new questions in the pool for those, because maybe we should review rules from the tech test when we upgrade.. but I find no need to test for code.. then again this article is not about the code, and so I won't go deep into my thoughts on that...
I think you should have to get a license to operate GMRS and MURS, I think that we have lost control of the CB band, and who cares about the 11 meter band, just as long as they stay off of 10 and 12 I am happy, and for FRS it should stay an unlicensed service, but I reccomend that familys get involved in ham radio, when we go places with the family we use simplex on our HT's to talk, we get further then with FRS, and we don't hear has many other people, and we sure has heck do not hear perverts...
That is all have to say for now.. thanks for reading, and take care everyone!
73'
+Steve, KD5OWO
kd5owo@arrl.net
Message Board Owner/Admin, Webmaster
http://urlcut.com/kd5owo
http://fireicetavern.proboards30.com
http://urlcut.com/centexyounghams
http://centexyounghams.proboards3.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- Alan Kay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WW0H on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The man asked a question; can we not give a constructive answer, pro or con, without belittling or criticizing? Many of the posts and replies complained of the condition on CB and ham frequencies; then we turn around and throw similar remarks here. Whatever you think of his question and proposal, can't you give an answer without throwing stones? How would you want to be answered if you asked the question face to face?
You want the bands to be better? Set the example. And you can start here!
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9RGX, Sir!!!
Why do we Hams need more frequencies/Bands when the "Politically-Correct thing to do is "do away with Amateur Radio" completely!!!
The "licensing system" is going down the TUBES, Intl. morse is considered "ARCHAIC", nobody wants to take any time out of their PRECIOUS schedules to LEARN anything!!!
It's not CODE that's really endangered it's our HOBBY that is!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KC8VWM on June 11, 2004:
">>> If a ham used a (RANGER) 2950 on 11m, that ham would be in violation of Part 95.<<<
If a ham actually used that junk on the ham bands, even legally, they would be violating thyself."
I own one of the older 2950s that does 10m only, (doesn't do 12), a Radio Shack HTX-10 and a couple of Realistic TRC-449 40-channel SSB CB radios. One is modded for 10m and the other is modded for 12m. I use them mobile when 10 & 12 are open. There's nothing wrong with that. Some of us can't afford an all-band mobile ham rig with an all-band mobile antenna and an auto tuner. Those of us without money to burn make due with what we've got. Also, in case you didn't know, before there were any all-band mobile HF rigs or any 10m rigs, hams used modded CBs for mobile 10m operation. When the band is open, you don't need more than 12W mobile to work the world anyway. Now its seldomly done because of all the all-band mobile HF rigs and all the inexpensive 10m rigs on the market.
BTW, between the RCI 2950 (a CBer's delight) and the Radio Shack HTX-10 (embraced by many hams during the peak of Cycle 23), the 2950 is a better and more full-featured radio than the HTX-10. The 2950 also has CW capabilities, which the HTX-10 doesn't. I also own an RCI 5054DX that I use on 6m. I'm quite satisfied with that rig also. Just because a radio has a built-in roger beep doesn't mean you have to have the stupid beep on. It also doesn't mean the radio is a piece of junk either.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A totally senseless proposal! Hams may already use those unlicensed services if they wish.
|
| |
|
wrong web site
|
|
|
by KZ1X on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This proposal would have gotten a more positive response over on QRZ.COM, no?
Actually, I _have_ tried to operate CW on 27.185 MHz even though it's not legal. The rig was lousy at keying but I made it work. Nobody answered my CQ (I used my name and not a call...).
So, it's a bad idea, because the CBers that were supposed to "pick up" on my good operating habits (a clean 3x3 CQ, good spacing, Farnsworth 15WPM rate) just ignored me.
So, back to 12M I go, with my 4 elements and 600W at 96 feet.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC5SAS on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The familiar Class D 27 mhz service began in 1958 and there have been periodic calls for ham and CB cooperation since the CB disaster response organization REACT has been established. (it this even still viable?) "
I don't see it as viable at all. All of the REACT team members I know are hams using 2 meter or 440 voice and packet. One still has a CB in his truck for monitoring CB Ch 19 while traveling. Personally I see little other use for CB and during events or disasters our REACTers will be too busy with other duties to monitor or worry about what's happening on the 'chicken band'. If you have someone who doesn't have their ham ticket there is nothing stoping you from using CB, FRS, MURS or, if you are properly licensed, GMRS radios just as anyone else would.
One thing I would like to see would be the fee for a GMRS license waved for those already holding a Ham license. Simply presenting a copy of your Ham ticket along with your GMRS license application and you could be issued a GMRS ID. Of course, that's taking money from the government so it probably wouldn't happen.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“Why doesn't the FCC give all citizens' bands to hams?”
We are not excluded from any “citizens’ band”. However, only type accepted equipment is allowed on those bands—ham radio gear is not allowed on those bands. Put another way, ham gear is not included for use on “citizens’ bands”.
“The point being is that many hams do have friends who do not yet have ham tickets with whom they could communicate while giving an example of what ham radio is all about.”
Nothing precludes any ham from buying equipment for “citizens’ bands”, and talking to friends that happen to be there. If they are citizens’ band” friends, then the ham already has the gear for use on "citizens' bands".
As it is now, if I wanted to get on any “citizens’ band”, I could simply buy the gear. But, I haven’t wanted to; so, I haven’t done it.
I haven’t bought a video surveillance system either. That doesn’t make me a video surveillance system snob.
I don’t buy “store bought” tomatoes—they taste awful! I don’t care if that makes me a tomato snob. I don’t buy them cause they don’t taste good.
I don’t get on FRS or GMRS because I don’t want to.
I don’t want to be buried—cremated. That doesn’t make me a burial snob.
“The FCC should also allow licensed Amateur Radio Operators to use their own equipment that is not normally type-approved for use in those bands as they would be type-approved for the Amateur Service -- Provided the Amateur Station follows power and mode restrictions on those bands.”
Send your proposal to the FCC, and let us know what they think.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Frankly; hell yes CB usage is on the decline right now. We are in a propagation trough. Wait a few years and that will all change. It will be worldwide chaos once again. Reclaim 11 meters? No thanks.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
EXPAT:
Your use of the words "tolerance" and "morons" in the same sentence seems...well..."oxymoronic". ;-}
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading your article a song came to mind... There are tears on the strings of the Gipsy's violins.
There is no need for the FCC to give more bands,power to those that want it or take away from those low class hams who are in the eyes of the Guru's just lepers. But soon it will be possible to get a Ham ticket by your local Grocery or Drug store as long as you have the Greenbacks for the FCC. About Emergency Communications between the Ham Fanily and those that have no licence but are still able to talk. Having been in the War, I will communicate during REAL EMERGENCIES any way and to anyone I can reach.Using HF, VHF,UHF, JUNGLE DRUMS OR BANGING TWO ROCKS TOGETHER. After its all over I will attent to the paperwork
Hang in there Folks, We are doomed. The World is NOT going to be destroyed
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please accept my apologies for my overcritical tone; I was responding to the second clarification. I'll attempt to explain.
It's not clear to me what privileges and operating modes hams would be authorized for on the citizens, FRS and GMRS bands. Would it be appropriate for them to call "CQ DX" on 11 meters? Let's assume that the amateur license would give hams precisely whatever operating modes, privileges and restrictions on these non-ham bands that the FCC authorizes for the non-ham users [this seems bureaucratically unjustifiable: why not be considered an X-operator, subject to the FCC rules and regulations governing operation in the X-band?] Still, one would have to spell out what exactly secondary usage would mean for the amateur-interlopers. Let's defer this matter, which I consider a difficult legal and political hurdle to overcome, and get to the point about elmering.
"The point being is that many hams do have friends who do not yet have ham tickets with whom they could communicate while giving an example of what ham radio is all about."
Perhaps the operators in those other bands are there precisely for the reason the FCC allocated them: to use them in accordance with FCC rules and regulations for their intended purpose. Why do they need hams to elmer them into ham radio, for some completely different purpose? If I were using GMRS, I wouldn't want my GMRS communications interrupted by evangelists for ham radio. The GMRS users could turn around and ask for the FCC privileges in the ham bands to attempt to convert hams over to GMRS.
"Also many times ham radio operators are involved in emergency service drills...This would allow ham operators to be come more inter-operable when needed and also to act as a pool of skilled operators as an example to the other services."
I would imagine the same arguments about operating as a GMRS user in the GMRS bands would apply. If you want to communicate with those users, add the appropriate gear.
As far as setting an example, I think this is presumptuous. I can't imagine how you could make a case that such examples are needed that wouldn't also justify allowing GMRS operators into the amateur bands to set examples of operating...I can't even complete my sentence, it's so preposterous. What do the operating practices of the different services have to do with each other? Amateur operating practices may be completely inappropriate in CB, GMRS, and FRS, and conversely.
In the second clarification, we find the troubling motive underlying this proposal:
"After reading your comments I guess it's beyond most of you to realize this would be a way to get more ham frequencies.
I see many of you only skimmed what I wrote. I know we can all operate on those bands as they are now, I want the FCC to allow Amateur Radio Operators to be able to operate on those bands using their FCC license as granted in the Amateur Service.
Being Able to Identify your beacon on the VLF license-free band with your Ham Callsign."
More ham frequencies? I thought your intention was a benign elmering of misguided operators who need the pristine example of hams to patiently and gently guide them away from the morass of the citizens bands into the greener pastures of ham radio.
"To make a move on Reclaiming the 11-meter band for Ham Radio (If you haven't noticed CB use has declined sharply)"
Now it turns out that intention of amending the FCC regulations is to have amateurs poised like vultures in the citizens bands, masking their true intention to re-assimilate these frequencies into the amateur service, under the pretence of elmering. This is not a nice thing. I can't imagine any good coming of this, and I see no reason why the FCC would entertain it.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD5OWO on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted By: NN6EE
"The "licensing system" is going down the TUBES, Intl. morse is considered "ARCHAIC", nobody wants to take any time out of their PRECIOUS schedules to LEARN anything!!!
It's not CODE that's really endangered it's our HOBBY that is!!! "
I personally belief in upping the amount of questions for the general, and maybe even on the extra test, but I am against the code being a requirement. Thatd does not mean our hobby is going down the drain, I hate it when people say that. This is a growing hobby, when new respectful hams everyday, and with everythings there are a few bad hams, or maybe not "bad" hams, just hams with bad operating practices.
Posted by KC8VWM on June 11, 2004:
">>> If a ham used a (RANGER) 2950 on 11m, that ham would be in violation of Part 95.<<<
If a ham actually used that junk on the ham bands, even legally, they would be violating thyself."
I will agree with AG4RQ about people not affording all-band mobile radios, in fact I would not mind getting modded CBs (when I upgrade)to run SSB on 10 and 12, that is not junk my friend. Also how would that be "Violating Thyself"?
Posted By KZ1X:
"Actually, I _have_ tried to operate CW on 27.185 MHz even though it's not legal. The rig was lousy at keying but I made it work. Nobody answered my CQ (I used my name and not a call...).
So, it's a bad idea, because the CBers that were supposed to "pick up" on my good operating habits (a clean 3x3 CQ, good spacing, Farnsworth 15WPM rate) just ignored me.
So, back to 12M I go, with my 4 elements and 600W at 96 feet."
I don't understand why you would want to operate CW on 11 meters over a ham radio, why would anyone want to do that? I mean its not legal, and plain stupid.. like I said before, we should leave 11 meters to the CB people who want to use it, and those who want to talk to ham people can get Ham tickets. Its a bad idea because its not a logical idea.
Posted By KC5SAS:
"I don't see it as viable at all. All of the REACT team members I know are hams using 2 meter or 440 voice and packet. "
This is a very valid point, a lot of REACT people are getting amateur radio tickets and doing a lot of emercency communications and giving assistant during events and stuff.
All in all, the idea to give hams radio operators access to CB radio, using CB equipment, and ham call is not the best idea..
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KT0DD on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Don't forget, GMRS is a LICENSED service, and you must buy a license for $ 75.00 for 5 years. Then you will have an appropriate GMRS callsign to use. MURS, CB, FRS are license free...:) 73.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by VE6XX on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello All: Students of psychology would have much data to analyse here. It is interesting to note how polarised amateurs are regarding some subjects. Why some folks find it necessary to channel their distaste for an opinion or an idea into a personal attack eludes me. A ham friend of mine, now a silent key, in his later years isolated himself from the ham community by reason of his irrascibility. I was one of a very few friends that he had. If I disagreed with him on ANY subject, he would cross his arms, look me straight in the eye & say ' Then you & I have nothing further to discuss!". A responder preached "tolerance" & then addressed the forum members as "morons". A non sequitur surely. The replies certainly covered the legal, technical, & social issues involved, & I infer from the majority of responses that we are not inclined as a group to entertain propositions to provide for a CB/FRS/GMRS "liaison" frequency/channel/or other communications medium.
My thanks to those who provided reasoned, civil input.
CHEERS! Brian, VE6XX
'
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A GMRS/FRS/CB/ham liason channel, meaning some additional common frequency allocation (or a re-allocation) open to facilitate communications during an emergency is conceivable. That's a charitable reinterpretation of the original proposal, whose secret motive was to open dying bands to hams, who would hover around in the hope of reclaiming them; in addition, the hams would help empty out the citizens band, as well as the FRS and GMRS bands by elmering the operators of those services into amateur radio, I suppose. It's a beautiful thought, though for me the bizzare consequences seem virtually inexhaustible; e.g., the FCC's policy of determining how underutilized bands would best be reallocated would seem to be undermined by the assimilation process--I'll resist the temptation to post anything further on this.
73
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W1BAK on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can't help but feel that N9RGX and some close friends of his are sitting around a computer monitor... drinking beer and laughing their butts off at the hornets nest they just stirred up for no reason other than just to do it because they were bored watching auto racing. I submit they even have made bets at how many responses they'll get from different states. I hope you guys choke on your cheetos.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WS4Y on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before I could ever operate 11 meters it would
need to be totally evacuated and the EPA put it
on its super fund list. I don't think it could
possibly be made polution free to the point I
could operate there during my lifetime.
Unfortunately the spill over is causing sever
polution in nearby areas. Call the EPA! The
FCC has given up.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by EXPAT on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG5JJ (MIKE),
Glad someone noticed my intentional shank pulling, but I really wish people could be , a la Morgan Freeman in "Bonfire of the Vanities," "decent to each other." With the attitude of a large proportion of the posters here, I am never going to change my eham login, even if I do pass the code test this summer. I mean, elitism is not cool, guys, be more like Mike here and know when to wink :0. Randy
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K8SWL on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why? Are all frequencies in the ham bands busy? One can operate in any of these services, amateur license or not. So it's a moot point. It's 9:45 AM on a Saturday morning and I just scanned 6 meters, 2 meters and 70 cm. One QSO on 2 meters is all I found. So the need for more VHF/UHF frequencies isn't there. I'm currently in a round table on 40 meters. Band has activity but not crowded. 20 meters was about the same a bit ago. We are in the propagation basement, it's summer time and other activities keep amateurs busy. If you want to talk on CB, FRS, murs etc, go ahead. However your time might be better spent trying to raise some activity on the amateur bands.
Just one guys thoughts. I'm going outdoors to enjoy the summer.
Regards
Mike K8SWL
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KG4DXS on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use the 11 meter band every other day or so. Works better sometimes than the 10 meter beacons to find propagation characteristics. If you hear my callsign KIS-1432, SSB, drop in for a visit. Regards to all, TA
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a reason why 11 meters was reallocated to "citizens band" useage. It was to let people who didn't want to go through the hurdles of getting a ham license get on the air. People who were incapable of getting a ham license. (No, I'm not going to start a flame war about everybody being 'capable'.)
For years now, the citizens band has 'gone to h*ll', and now you want to encroach on that band and invite CBers to encroach on the ham bands? For that is what will happen--it is already happening on the 10 meter band. No matter how the ruling comes down, the people on the current CB band will consider it an invasion if hams were to start ID-ing with ham call signs on 11 meters.
Also, the use of ham radio equipment on the other bands invites trouble--we as hams are allowed to adjust and repair our own equipment. It is not allowable to do so on the other bands for obvious reasons. Another area for potential trouble?
I agree with the other posters. If you want to operate on those other bands, do it--but with radios type accepted for those bands, and not by operating with your ham call sign. You would be inviting trouble--not only for yourself, but for all hams.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N8MMZ on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why not get more frequencies? It's a perfect opportunity to grab more spectrum.
Of course, you can take 700,000 American hams at present and divide up the total by the new amount of spectrum. Then you will see that our spectrum usage has fallen!
Now opponents of the amount of ham radio will say: "Gee look at how much spectrum these hams aren't using." It would then be a good time to knock us of of 40M? 80M? 440MHz? What other bands could be up for loss?
No, at the present - we should defend the spectrum we have by promotion of the hobby and just plain usage. Once our future is secure and our numbers are increased, then we should talk about obtaining more spectrum.
73s de N8MMZ
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k1CJS
The Citizen's Band was NOT developed as a lazy way to get on the air!! The basis and purpose of CB originally was to provide low-cost, short-range business and personal communications. It was NEVER intended to be a hobby. The FCC tried vainly to regulate the chit-chat and DXing and gave up completely when CB exploded during the arab oil embargo of the early 70's.
73, Pete KA3RFE (KEN-1621)
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KQ6IY on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a truly entrtaining thread!
Look if you HAVE to run a Cobra next to your Kenwood then do so. I have an emergency CB (somewhere..). But trying to make the use of CB by hams an arguable point... is ludicrous. For starters, who in their right mind is gong to compete for bandwidth with the kilowatt truckers and hundreds of linear equipped taxis south of the border...
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC0NXH on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Im 15 years old and started out on CB for 1 month. CB is the worst mode of communication I have ever used. Thats why Im a ham. We have plenty of bands and CB is just a bunch of interference and RF clutter. When I used it FRS walkie talkie worked better.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A lot of the Guys out here are exactly right in that we have MORE than enoguh frequencies as it is. If you go from 160m. on up to 70cm we're looking at approx. 35 megahertz!!! That's a helluva lot of spectrum space and a lot of it is NOT ALWAYS USED!!!
I never went the "CBer route" because I did'nt mind WORKING for my PRIVILEGES. That's something that's totally lacking in today's "WANNA-BE" generation!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD5OWO on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted On June 12th 2004 my K8SWL/Mike:
"Why? Are all frequencies in the ham bands busy? One can operate in any of these services, amateur license or not. So it's a moot point. It's 9:45 AM on a Saturday morning and I just scanned 6 meters, 2 meters and 70 cm. One QSO on 2 meters is all I found. So the need for more VHF/UHF frequencies isn't there. I'm currently in a round table on 40 meters. Band has activity but not crowded. 20 meters was about the same a bit ago. We are in the propagation basement, it's summer time and other activities keep amateurs busy. If you want to talk on CB, FRS, murs etc, go ahead. However your time might be better spent trying to raise some activity on the amateur bands.
Just one guys thoughts. I'm going outdoors to enjoy the summer.
Regards
Mike K8SWL"
This guy has a point, prett much all the 2 meter repeaters around here are dead. We are discouraged to use the repeaters, in a training session during a net the other night about "Proper Repeater Usage" we were told that when a phone call can be made, or you can contact that person over the internet, then that is best instead of tieing up a repeater. Sure some of the guys I chat with on 2 meters I could chat over email, or even on the phone, but why? Why put 2 meter repeaters in our area, open them for general use.. and then say that it is best to keep them free? Simplex around here is dead most of the time anyways, I know a few guys on simplex, but they are not around at 2 in the morning.
HF should be a lot of fun, but like you said it is summer time, so I don't know how much I will be able to hear when I get on HF in the next couple of weeks. Still I will enourcourge everyone to pick up their mikes.
73'
+Steve, KD5OWO
kd5owo@arrl.net
Message Board Owner/Admin, Webmaster
http://urlcut.com/kd5owo
http://fireicetavern.proboards30.com
http://urlcut.com/centexyounghams
http://centexyounghams.proboards3.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wise men make proverbs, but fools repeat them."
- Samuel Palmer (1805-80)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve,
I guess it all depends on where you are!!!
Here in the "Republic of California" 2m. simplex is well used,like for instance in Southern Calif, while here in the "Bay Area" almost any simplex channel is available at one time or another aka "wide-open"!!!
We're getting ourselves into a quandry here in Amateur Radio because the technology is getting ahead of us way to quickly and Amateur Radio is a big victim of said technology.
I'd say within 10 years that "Ham Radio" will be irrevelant and there's not a DAMN thing that we can do about it!!!
The "Computer-Age" is a formidable foe isn't it to catch the interest of OUR youth???
Whatever ARRL's "El Presidente" Haynie does or says it won't change a damn thing!!!
Time marches on!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KG4EFA on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't get this post! Amateurs or anybody can talk on CB, FRS, or MURS. I do. If you want to talk to somebody who doesn't have a HAM ticket, hand him a FRS or MURS capable radio and go to talking. Rick KG4EFA.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Simplex around here is dead most of the time anyways, I know a few guys on simplex, but they are not around at 2 in the morning etc,
HF should be a lot of fun, but like you said it is summer time, so I don't know how much I will be able to hear when I get on HF in the next couple of weeks. Still I will encourage everyone to pick up their Mic's.
I have to agree here also The two meter Repeaters around here are used mostly by the same people every day.Day in and Day out.
One or two talking about their health or the other few Skywarn coordinators talking about what there going to do by way of linking more Repeaters to cover counties they have no jurisdiction over . These glory seekers are looking for hams to learn how to report the weather to them ,no reason to teach our yonger ham's anything other than what to report . Net control is not a shared event .One can only wonder what will happen if there is no one else with enough experience to run the net if one of these so called controlling Skywarn Coordinators is not around or have a power loss due to storms etc. Long story short I think we need to get in control of the frequencies we have and stop letting control freaks drive our younger hams away from this wonderful hobby.
kf4vgx Myrtle Beach S.C.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K1MVP on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN6EE,
Quote, "the computer age is a formidable foe to
catch the interest of our youth"
Quote, " whatever ARRL`s pres. Haynie does or says
wont change things"
I agree 100%,--it seems that the ARRL still thinks
it can attract youth with their "new proposals",
es bring ham radio into the 21`st century.
Makes one wonder what century they,(ARRL)are
living in.
73`s, K1MVP
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA3RFE:
I didn't say "the lazy way to get on the air", you made that statement. I said:
"It was to let people who didn't want to go through the hurdles of getting a ham license get on the air."
Which is a statement different from yours. I never said CB was intended to be a hobby type service either. Please stop putting words in my mouth--words I never said or intended to say.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD5OWO on June 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think there would be more youth on the air if there were not so many pushy people on the air scaring away the youth. Also we must integrate computers and radio, and that has already begun. The ham community is changing, but it will not die (unless we get too many of these OF's around that want to start controlling everything) what we really need is a new era of operators, I think the youth today needs to set a good example for ham radio operators of tomorrow.
@ KF4VGX
It seems you have problems with weather people too, or somebody does. It seems that if there is good weather, they still chase people off. One guy told me that it was because if people had QSOs on the weather repeater then other stormchasers would not listen for emergency's.
We don't need more frequencies, we need to be ABLE to use the ones we have without being chased off.
73'
+Steve, KD5OWO
kd5owo@arrl.net
Message Board Owner/Admin, Webmaster
http://urlcut.com/kd5owo
http://fireicetavern.proboards30.com
http://urlcut.com/centexyounghams
http://centexyounghams.proboards3.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Silence is argument carried out by other means."
- Ernesto"Che"Guevara (1928-1967)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD7ZRO on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Am I reading the responding posts right? Did I really see one saying all CBers are worthless and all CBer/Hams are equaly as bad if not worse?? Should I, as a ham and a CBer, write the FCC and request that my license be cancelled because I am causeing more harm than good and cloging the ham bands? Should I cancel my license anyway sense I am a horrible no-code tech? Is this really what I am hearing, or raither reading?? Now this is something I would expect from CB, but not whithin ham radio. In my first contact, a fellow ham said, "Congradulations, Rod. Hope to hear you more offten." Was this just one of the .05% of hams that don't hate everyone that is NOT on the ham bands, but still enjoys the hobby of radio communications? The only regret I had was that I did not get my license sooner, well, until I read this.
My two cents,
Rod KD7ZRO
Oh, the only time I use my CB anymore is to communicate with my non-ham family.
And if I ever heard code on CB, I would be more than happy to answer.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KB4NXE on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm not too familiar with the FRS, But since it's deregulation, CB has pretty much gone to the dogs. In my opinion, even good amateur practice wouldn't be of much use on that band.,
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N0GRV on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
we can already use any frequency we want (in an emergency) so whats the point. if people in those other services want to talk to us let them study and get a license. N0GRV
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
we can already use any frequency we want (in an emergency) so whats the point.
I'm afraid this not quite right :) As an Amateur operator if you were to use a local police frequency even in an Emergency ,you could lose your license
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K2ROK on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
With 220 mhz under utilized and already one of the best VHF-UFH bands in terms of propagation characteristics, I am unsure why a licensed ham would waste time with those "other" bands, especially 27 megs.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's face it, "most" of the people who utilize CB DO NOT OPERATE legally. Typical scenario would be using a modified "Amateur Radio" transceiver running 100w with VFO instead of 5w. max/xtal controlled as well as wandering ABOVE 28mhz to maintain their inane BS!!! Secondly it's these same BOZOs who "DON'T CARE!!!"
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD5OWO on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To the guy who said he uses CB to talk to his non-ham family, what I would say to this is that it would be a good time to encourage your parents and siblings to get their tech tickets. For those families who use FRS radio, that is great to utilize that spectrum, but I think they would get more out of becoming a ham family, and using simplex to talk. We chose a simplex channel, and we have that as our call channel, if we go somewhere we usually use that, and I have heard a fair share of other familys on there, so we are not the only family who has the same idea.
This is a great way to grow our hobby, to get families involved...
Lets stop bashing CBers and people who use FRS, I agree there are many CBers who will never learn, but those who come from CB into ham radio are doing themselves a favor, and doing our hobby a favor..
+Steve/KD5OWO
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess your idea would be to entice/mentor GMRS/FRS users.
I started on CB a very long time ago with those CH14 walkie talkies. I wanted more so I got my ham ticket.
No law against you using FRS. If you want to follow a Ham like protocol, that is up to you.
I agree with one poster. If I use my call on GMRS/FRS, who knows that it will not be bootlegged!
back in the early 1970's, we had may that would tell us CBers how great Ham was.
I thought GMRS is not a needed ticket anymore. I do remember that you can go to the FCC site and file online. Give the FCC your $75 from your charge card.
You are now licensed to operate GMRS with full power.
I think base units are under 10Watts.
I can see were some could feel that we took all those test's, why do we not get GMRS for free.
There are some very interesting repeater clubs up thier. One is a mix of police and the NYC press cor.
However you need a GMRS call sign to use it.
If it aint broke, do not fix it.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KY1V on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see it now...
Shortly after signing KY1V on the CB band, some schmuck from Vermont thinks my call sign is a cool and starts hollerin'...
"how bout' it skipland, this is King Yankee One Vermont from the green mountain state, comon' back good buddy"
Can't the managers of Eham think of some interesting articles. As far as I can tell, other than the classifieds and the product reviews, this site isn't good for ham radio and is only used to perpetuate bickering!
David KY1V
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Can't the managers of Eham think of some interesting articles. As far as I can tell, other than the classifieds and the product reviews, this site isn't good for ham radio and is only used to perpetuate bickering!"
I'm breaking my vow of silence (on this thread) to respectfully disagree. Many of us are becoming reactionary curmudgeons in our dotage. Past middle-age, I've developed a peculiar fondness for CW, even with increasingly diminshed hearing. Among other useful services, such as the product reviews, technical articles (though these are less frequent than the opinion pieces) and news items, eHam serves as a kind of old-folks home; it's an oasis for those of us nattering nababobs of negativitism (to borrow a phrase written by William Safire for Spiro Agnew) who need, in our creative decline, an outlet for expressing hardened prejudice and uninformed, rigid intolerance in the realm of amateur radio. What would we have left, if not for these indecisive philosophical battles, which end with all sides retreating in wounded ignorance, to their armchairs?
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W2DUG on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2JHZ wrote:
"...eHam serves as a kind of old-folks home; it's an oasis for those of us nattering nababobs of negativitism..."
------
Makes sense, but I always thought a visit from the younger generations once in a while at the old-folks home brightened things up. I guess this is a different type of home (or a different type of old folks)....
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KNV7BD on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ABORE stated, “I understand your idea and agree wholeheartedly that the MURS/FRS/CB bands could use some more professional operators. And you're probably right that it'd also bring new people over to the ham bands.”
If this non-Amateur Radio Operator might be allowed to express an opinion …
For those who have not yet read the May 2004 edition of Monitoring Times, "Closing Comments," page 92, might find it of interest. I found the comments in numbers two and three, and the final comment, which included, "and our attitude," to be of a particular personnel interest.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this is one of the reasons more and more Amateur Radio Operators "HAMS" are electing to stay off the air. Perhaps its the attitude displayed by some Amateur Radio Operators that is causing a greater number, who may have joined and became a beneficial asset to your hobby, to elect not to be involved. For those who have decided to overlook the few, actually, my findings and understanding is it is more then a few, and become "hams," the new generation of hams, the new blood, the dumbing downers, will elect not to let heads swell and realize it does not take one to be a "ham" to be a valuable asset of and to the community. Nor a more knowledgeable radio operator then those unmentionable CB'ers, and others. Nor allow egotistical attitudes to rule the day, no matter what they involve themselves in.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
You said, “ the MURS/FRS/CB bands could use some more professional operators.”
Why, because in your “Amateur Radio Operators opinion” they are wrong? Citizens Band Operators appear to be enjoying their hobby, why not leave them alone, allow them to continue to enjoy, and you go enjoy yours. If you don’t appreciate, like or condone their behavior there is nothing to prevent you from changing the frequency.
You went on to say, “And you're probably right that it'd also bring new people over to the ham bands.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Perhaps a few, as in the past, would take the examination and join your ranks, but the vast majority will not.
I believe KA5N said it correctly, "As Pogo said, We have met the enemy and they is us."
I realize this is probably not the correct place to be posting this. However, this is where I read the article and this is where I will respond to it.
To those that I have offended by doing so, I apologize.
Attitude folks … it will make or break you. There is no doubt Ameatur Radio performs a very valuable service to, and for, the public. I, for one, appreciate what you do, but don't allow the "holier then thou group" to rule.
http://knv7bd.bravehost.com
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N1KCW on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, so much negative feedback for a modest proposal. I think the gist of this proposal is to allocate the CB/FRS/MURS frequencies for HAM usage as a secondary service TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TYPE ACCEPTANCE so ham gear can be legally modified/used for use on those frequencies. What is the big deal and resistance to that from all you folks? Just about every ham I talk to face to face has modified his equipment "for emergency use" to operate out of band(that is legal when life is in danger). Why not legalize it for this harmless use on these very unregulated frequencies by making a minor change to the rules. The sun hasn't imploded from folks doing this in other countries where the rules are different. I must say as a generalization, I have never seen a group of people so resistant to change as hams are.
rich
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KY1V-David!!!
You think think the "bickering" out here is BAD here???
Try QRZ.Com it's even WORSE!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W2DUG on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N1KCW wrote:
"... I think the gist of this proposal is to allocate the CB/FRS/MURS frequencies for HAM usage as a secondary service TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TYPE ACCEPTANCE so ham gear can be legally modified/used for use on those frequencies. ..."
I like that idea, but how would you propose keeping the transmit power levels compliant with the regulations? For instance, my mobile rig can TX on FRS frequencies, but the lowest power setting is 5 Watts where the regulations limit the power to 0.5 Watts. That's a pretty big difference. But an even bigger difference is that I could use a gain antenna with that rig, so the ERP could be even higher. I think that would get unmanageable in terms of potential interference, especially considering how crappy the front ends are in the consumer FRS radios.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N1KCW on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the proposed rules change could allow more power for licensed hams to operate at, again maybe adding incentive for motivated/interested folks to get their ham license for the greater range capabilites. Presently hams must operate at safe levels for a given band, I keep it to 50 watts for 10m in my set up since I run an attic antenna as an example. Maybe frs/murs has a 10 watt limit as a proposal etc. My point in responding is that everyone poo-poo'd his proposal without gving it any thought. If you don't want to mod your rig and operate in thes "bands" you don't have to, but legalizing it for a mod that seems to be done quite a bit makes sense to me. These aren't critical frequncies after all, for fire or police, they are already recreational for the most part or low cost business freqs.
rich
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think the proposed rules change could allow more power for licensed hams to operate at, again maybe adding incentive for motivated/interested folks to get their ham license for the greater range capabilites."
Now that would offend the FRS, GMRS users and subvert the purpose of those bands, which were allocated for reasons completely unrelated to the amateur radio service. It seems like a way to breed resentment between hams and FRS and GMRS operators, and confirm suspicions within the FCC that hams bear an affinity with the BORG.
Then again, you might find in the FCC chairman an enthusiastic supporter of schemes to encourage, under the slogan of deregulation, the assimilation by the most powerful lobbyists of whole chunks of the radio spectrum, given the record as presented here: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/rules.swf
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KB9ERU on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I still like to listen to my CB every once in a while. It's entertaining on long drives I have to do now and then. Sometimes it's more entertaining than the FM broadcast band. But that's a different topic.
We really need to utilize the bands we already have. Countless times I have spun the big dial to listen to more emptiness. Well, except for the 10 meter band, which is slowly becoming the new CB band of choice for the unlicensed types.
I remember when I first got my license in 1990. The bands were wall to wall, and the code was flowing. I remember having to hunt and wait on open freq's to use.
Waiting on repeater time was another common practice.
Over the years it's gradually become a western ghost town. I hear beacons, a FEW dx stations, see a tumbleweed fly by now and then, but nothing like it was. I miss those days. I wonder where everyone went. Now I know. It's not just the solar cycle or my equipment. They are all sitting in front of the computers on eHam and QRZ!!!
CU off of the computer, and ON the bands.
Mick KB9ERU
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AC3P on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, It will be interesting when all those hams go on FRS or CB and start using their call signs to identify.
I bet the FCC will run out of pink paper stock and Riley will have to hire more people to send out those out of band operation violations.
73
Frank AC3P
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AC3P on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, It will be interesting when all those hams go on FRS or CB and start using their call signs to identify.
I bet the FCC will run out of pink paper stock and Riley will have to hire more people to send out those out of band operation violations.
73
Frank AC3P
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by AC3P on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please excuse the double post. The system burped when I sent it.
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD5OWO on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its a shame when there are many times you try to share your thoughts or ask a question and you get jumped on for it.
+Steve, KD5OWO
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N1KCW on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Frank,
if the proposal went thru close to as intended, there would be no problem using your ID on your modified ham rig on those freqs. In fact, if I were to use an FRS radio or CB today that is type accepted(my whopping 4 dollar FRS radio or 8 dollar CB I bought at a flea), why couldn't I use my call sign instead of a handle(not that I would today)? There is no license needed so I can call myself what ever I want(hey mercy sakes alive its the Rubber Duck:-) ). The only illegal aspect would be using a non type accepted radio in that band. Remember, there is no type acceptance needed for operation in the HAM bands, so the change proposed is to fix what amounts to a nit in my opinion. Many hams already use commercial radios modified to operate in the HAM spectrum, this proposal would just leagalize the converse for other public use non-licensed frequencies. And as far as PO'ing the CB'rs and FRS users, maybe this is a regional thing, but the CB bands seem dead here in central MA and FRS just sounds like a few neighborhood kids and a few travelers passing thru...so who would this hurt? It would be so much more convenient to use just one modified radio to operate everywhere, especially while traveling.
Rich
73!
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WHY on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was considering becoming a HAM the test does not look that hard. Most of it is very basic if you much of a electrical background at all. The think i seem to notice is the SNOBB feelings toward all that are not in the "HAM CLUB". The way these post read. Why would anyone subject themselft to such a uptight group. If the Hams dont like the CB bands dont go there. " why the superior attitude" I still think they are fun. and sometimes very usefull, Im not a driver just a regular joe. I find a lot of good eats on the road talking to the "drivers". And have used the 11 meter to find ways around construction and when im lost on the road. "ALWAYS helpful and freindly people" only MAJOR down sides to 11 meter is power and language.
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OWO,
You're statement about voicing an opinion or jest venting is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!
Now as far as "ROLEY"/Mr. H is concerned he's not the most fine/up-standing person either as he's let alotta stuff (across his desk) get publically chastised by a "WARNING LETTER" that should never have been issued in the first place, as he has LISTENED to many who caught his ear only because that was what he wanted to hear, and some of the petty/vindictive (aka "RADIO-COPS") or so-called ARRL OOs who were losers to begin with, and since they were in that state-of-mind wanted to screw with others who they did'nt LIKE, and over the short-haul actually got away with doing just that!!!
The C.I.B run by Roley H. also needs to be cleansed and re-vamped!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by CB on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all I can't believe I am even responding to this post, but oh well.
1 - we dont even use the bands we have to the fullest extent, so why do we need additional bands.
2 - FRS, GMRS, MURS, CB, etc all are there for various reasons, some with licence requirements some without, and if you want to play on those bands go ahead, no one is stopping you.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by W3DCG on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've pondered this, and do not see why a licensed Amateur should not be able to cross operate without further paperwork. So many use CB these days, and of those who do, how many REALLY went through the trouble of
A) determining how and where to go about getting a CB callsign/license
B) Where are the rules and regulations concerning legal CB use? Seems no one knows, though I'll admit, I have not attempted to research these questions.
C) Illegal use is already so rampant, and I do not mean abuse, I mean simple unlicensed use- that the FCC is surely pleased. What a huge administrative paper blizzard, if suddenly everyone using CB, to include very occasional non-regular users, were to request a license.
It is the same with FRS/GMRS, you can buy them at any home improvement or department store, and what is not included, are the forms one would complete and mail to the FCC. Since the enforcement is somewhere between nil and zero, who is going to comply by going through all the hassle of finding the forms and sending them in? Hams, who do not want to jeopardize their Amateur privileges, and, that is about it.
I think, that it is a good idea for hams to be able to legally operate on other open to the public service frequencies, simply sign your call slash-designator, as stated by the FCC.
Or just ignore the whole idea, like everyone is anyway.
Last time I used my HT, it was to reach my wife, at a parade. We used the local most popular repeater. Then, we switched to our FRS hand-helds, simplex.
The funny or sad part, is that the primary motivation for doing so, was because the FRS handheld will ring the other with a loud bleeping/ringing tone, and lights will flash, plus the whole thing will vibrate, if you want. This alerts the other party to grab the radio and respond.
With our 2m triband do it all wunderboxes, unless we are constantly monitoring, we miss each others calls. Before we obtained our FRS walkie-talkies, we'd decide to call each other and monitor for each other, on the quarter hour.
But when you're participating in a parade, keeping tabs on four young children who are also in the parade, there is much too much going on, to be troubled by having to watch the clock and be sure to listen at the quarter hours.
Finally, we simply bit the bullet and purchased another cell phone, but the FRS ringing/vibrating walkie talkies are invaluable in places like Scietrek, OMSI, Zoo, parks, even just around the house. When the kids go to the neighbors, or bicycling around the corner, they carry the FRS- and if they need, they press a button. It is a wonderful way to help safeguard the 7 year old and above group.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KD7ZRO on June 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, erlier I was to busy with complaining about the responding post I did not give my opinion about the "proposal". I would think it a good idea if I heard more activity on the 2 meter band (I believe it is the most popular of the VHF band). Of all of the repeaters in this area (NW Washington) not many get used all that much.
Now I came from the foul mouth CB band, and the funny thing is all the foul mouth ops were using type accepted, un-modified radios, and yes four watts. They were all local.
All the people I talked to who were running amps were raither nice and just operating for fun with clean language, couldn't understand half of what they said, but they were nice. And yes I ran four watts of power.
Rod KD7ZRO
|
| |
|
Use whatever you want, no permission needed
|
|
|
by K4RAF on June 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Use all frequencies, as needed, depending on your tolerance of endless pradling requests of "What's your call?"
$75 for a GMRS license? I am sure all those Type Accepted hybrid radio users are really loading down the applications section at the FCC... It is a joke & they know it!
Can I use scrambling on a hybrid FRS radio IF I don't modify it to do it? (This is always a great debate, good for weeks at a time)
Dream on people, we are in our twilight of our purpose...
|
| |
|
RE: Use whatever you want, no permission needed
|
|
|
by K7IHC on June 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the author of this *article* would study up on the purposes of these Part 95 radio services, he would learn that they are intended for short-range personal and business communication. Power output and antenna restrictions keep the ranges relatively short. GMRS does require a license to operate on, but the other services don't. They are *license by rule* services. Just because they don't require an FCC license to operate on them, it doesn't mean that there aren't any rules and regs to comply with when operating on them.
As for the use of amateur equipment on these services, three of the five MURS freqs are considered narrowband (11K0F3E emission), and FRS has narrowband channel spacing. Not many current VHF/UHF ham rigs can meet these specs.
The 15 GMRS freqs are still considered wideband.
I paid my $75 and obtained a GMRS license. I use it to communicate with my non-ham family members, with better range than FRS. Pre-owned (used/surplus) commercial UHF two-way equipment allows me to operate on GMRS and the 70cm ham band with the same radio. Repeaters are also allowed on GMRS, and there are a few local ones that I have access to.
An excellent website for FRS/CB/GMRS/MURS info is: www.gmrsweb.com
Check it out and learn about the world of personal/family communications.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yikes!!!!!
You guys are getting a little too deep with this stuff.
What is it with this need for "more band space" and "let's promote ham radio" by getting acccess to 11 meters and FRS????
Doesn't make alot of sense considering that 10 meters is about as unutilized as a band gets, especially if you compare "utilization" to other services like commercial services, etc. CB had been dead since 1995 or so with the exception of truckers and even these guys have switched over to cell phones.
Then there's FRS....can you imagine; everyone will flock to FRS, build antennas, get Icom and Yaesu to build gear (they just need the excuse) and say we need it for public service. Oh yeahhhh....
Next thing will be the ARRL screaming at the FCC to keep us on FRS - while we still haven't missed a thing loosing sections of 220. What would happen if we lost the FM section of 6 meters?? Not much.......
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC0GQT on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Um... NO!
Even if we had secondary access or visa-versa, we are still not allowed to talk to unlicenced users. Look at wifi, we can setup our own networks but are not allowed to let unlicenced users on our network.
Besides have you heard what kind of stuff goes on CB. Why on the earth would you want to use that for ham use????????
Tell your friends to get a licence, plain and simple!!!
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Having being implicitly accused of being overly dismissive, I decided to give this notion a field test. With a type approved radio, I got on FRS, and managed to establish some contacts with some other local FRS users. In a declamatory style, I spoke:
By law I cannot use my callsign here,
in this chaotic band called FRS,
though I assure you: I have a license!
My point: I have ventured into this Hell,
my fortunate contacts, to Elmer your
lost souls into Amateur Radio!
Where order prevails; where operators
are only helpful, considerate, sane;
where frequencies are free of QRM
in every direction in every band;
where trolls and curmudgeons are filtered out
by the incentive licensing process!
How unprepared I was for their disdain!
"What part of "Go away!" should we explain?
With your thumb and index finger compute
the cross-product, and on that vector spin."
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC0IDI on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
"however If you use your ham callsign on those bands you are operating illegally since you as a hame are not licensed to operate on those frequencies." ........ Read part 95. Then you will have a clear idea on who can legally use cb.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Got to admit some of those FRS radio's are built better than some of the cheap ham hand helds.
I was listing in in my motorola FRS radio. Has a stop watch 36 code pl, speech scrambling(analog inversion type).
The neat feature was the emergency RX. If a storm heading your way, it the radio tunes to the emergency weather channel. Sure enough, I had one on. I heard a warning tone. Then the wx channel. Everytime, it would rain cats and dogs minutes later.
That is a feature I would not mind having on my dual bander!
I also had a few QSO's on FRS. They were talking about the inside electronics of their radio's. I told them I was a Ham operator.
They said that they were going for their ticket some day. They were learning morse. They were using morse on FRS. I said sounds like you going in the right direction. Keep up the good work. Find a ham club.
They were almost 5 miles away. The range on the better designed FRS radio's in open terrain are excellent.
This Motorola 6800 FRS said it was shock resistant. I
gave them to my friends kids. I got the pair for $20 on ebay. I told my friends kids to really use them. After a few months one broke. It was dropped many times, and thrown to the floor, and walls.
Frankly they have thier niche use. Perhaps this will keep some from using 2m and 70cm for non ham use.
We do not need any special FCC grant. Just some time.
No need to brick bat an idea. I am sure the FCC has had idea's that would drive HAMS mad.
We all want the same thing. The hobby to grow in a good direction.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WE5ST on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree on two points:
1. We can make more full use of the frequencies we have.
2. Having access to FRS with ham protocols would be very effective in filling out emergency communication options.
I don't think the two points are mutually exclusive. Both support better use of our potential and serve the community.
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about a officil "Will of Landrew Channel""
Remember that 1960's Star Trek episode.
From a given time all the people were friendly, and helpfull. Then the RED HOUR comes around. All of a sudden everybody left outside for the festival went psychotic. They went around starting fires, looting, pillaging, and other anti-social behavior.
Lets have a Will of Riley band. Its all callsigns of all services working together. Then the red hour hits and it turns into something 1000X worse than 11 meters.
10KW minimum output, scrambling 256 bit des type, so not even the alphabet agencies can decrypt all the organised gang activity.
I am not making fun of the author. I just had nothing better to do!
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is the proper CQ for Hams using FRS.
CQ,CQ,CQ, here is (make up your own call from reading an item on a Mcdonalds menuu backwards) calling CQ....
No lids, no kids, no space cadets!
Actually this CQ was used by an OT many years ago.
He would call CQ, his call, then say no lids, no kids, no space cadets!
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KB9FMV on June 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To N9RGX I applaude him on his idea of using the CB band ! I think we as amateurs should encourage others to get into the hobby and service ! This would be a great way to promote the hobby! We all started somewhere! I started in school ! A ham operator was giving electronic theory classes on old phonograghs which peaked my intrest! By the time I was 16 I built my first phonogragh! As for K1MVP well give him the old boat anchor award ! Let him keep building and restoring old boat anchors and let N9RGX peak the intrest of the young to explore the GIG HERTZ ,FIBER OPTIC, AND SPACE AND BEYOND ! THATS WHAT HAM RADIO SHOULD BE REALLY ABOUT!
|
| |
|
RE: More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by K1MVP on June 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to KB9FMV,
Thanks,for the offer of the "Boatanchor" award, but
I will "pass", as I am not a "certificate chaser".
By the way, I guess because one enjoy`s restoring
old equipment,--it is assumed that is all one can
do, or it is all one has ever done.
Just a "note",--I have worked on much solid state
equipment, es also scratch many solid state QRP
rcvr`s es xmtrs over the years.
I`ve also worked in commercial land mobile,VHF,UHF
etc, etc.
It so happens I just enjoy the "old stuff" now
that am retired, just for the "fun" of it.
You might want to look up the "new" old am station
that was just installed at W1AW, this past weekend
on QRZ.com, and then tell the ARRL "THAT IS NOT
WHAT HAM RADIO IS ALL ABOUT".
73`S, K1MVP
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by KC2IJI on June 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's bloody darn little on CB. Channel 6 has KW AM signals, and there's more on "freeband" above and below than any real use of CB.
I wish I could reliably talk on 2 M FM and discuss road conditions. I can't.
Everyone has this memory from 1983 of what happened, and they think that this is current reality. As a ham who uses (listens) to 11 m while driving, there's not much, except on 19, and "19 one down", 26.735 (I think).
11m is garbage, in the same way 10 m is. No DX unless sunspots, noise, etc. Who wants it ? Listen to the area between 24 mhz and 28 mhz. Its' all trash band. No one uses, no one wants it.
Casey
K2FIX
|
| |
|
More Frequencies for Hams
|
|
|
by VE7LGT on June 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think what Mr Voss is getting at is why is it that that our amateur equipment is not approved to opperate on these bands . I Would certainly hope that my VX2-R is of equal or better quality and standards than that of a $30.00 FRS radio or the 27 mhz transmiter on a cheap RC car, But it comes down to money. The cost for the manufacturer to get type aproval for these bands would turn my $300.00 VX2-R into an $800.00 luxury, well at least thats what they tell us!!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Truck Drivers Taking Over Lower Portion of 10-Meters
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
Testing Radio Gear
The Inevitable Death of Ham Radio
Dealing with CB Interference
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
