Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

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

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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do we need another two ham bands?  (Read 4282 times)
WB0CJB
Member

Posts: 131




Ignore
« on: October 07, 2017, 08:45:30 AM »

I guess I don't get it but why do we need two more ham bands when the propagation is getting worse? People already whine that they can't hear each other even though they live two states away running 1500 watts. Most of the time the bands don't have much activity unless you are totally into JT65/JT9/FT8 wham bam thank you ma'am type of contact.

Seems that the new bands will require one to experiment where the vast majority of today's hams jus buy ready made gear and antennas. They aren't interested in experimentation.
Logged
K0BT
Member

Posts: 362




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2017, 10:29:00 AM »

 Because the experimenters will figure out more effective tools and the operators will determine best methods, same as for all our other bands.  Most early adopters will be both types. 

Bitching about band conditions is a proud ham radio tradition.  A lot of good ideas have come from it.

Logged
LITTLEWALKERTALKER
Member

Posts: 3




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2017, 10:59:36 AM »

Seems that the new bands will require one to experiment where the vast majority of today's hams jus buy ready made gear and antennas. They aren't interested in experimentation.
So you're saying the FCC is basically creating a place for the experimenters to experiment outside of the regularly used communications frequencies (where those ready made, unexperimental, majority folks are)...  And this is a bad thing how?
Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2982




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2017, 11:22:41 AM »

Two new bands? I guess you're referring to the spectrum slivers often called 630 and 2200 meters. Those were active amateur real estate prior to 1912. Doubt many of us will transmit there but it should be a hoot to listen to "opening night" whenever that occurs.

I presume the U.S. prohibition against DXing on 630 will be dropped.
Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 1029




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2017, 12:27:10 PM »

Here is a website of daily reports on the preceding night's 630m activity:

http://njdtechnologies.net/category/630-meter-daily-reports/

DX is not common but not rare either, esp given that we're talking 5 watts EIRP on low freqs.
Logged

AA2UK
Member

Posts: 363




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2017, 08:37:29 AM »

I guess I don't get it but why do we need two more ham bands when the propagation is getting worse? People already whine that they can't hear each other even though they live two states away running 1500 watts. Most of the time the bands don't have much activity unless you are totally into JT65/JT9/FT8 wham bam thank you ma'am type of contact.

Seems that the new bands will require one to experiment where the vast majority of today's hams jus buy ready made gear and antennas. They aren't interested in experimentation.

My opinion is yes at least I'm happy to be putting a station on 630 meters. Prop is entirely different on the MF freqs and has little to do with Sunspot numbers.
In the past I've had no problem working stations out to 500 miles on 10GHz and could easily work 2 states over on 24GHz.
These new authorizations seem to be attracting many of the VHF and up operators who love a challenge.
To each his own....
Bill, AA2UK
Logged
KG4NEL
Member

Posts: 508




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2017, 01:59:29 PM »

I guess I don't get it but why do we need two more ham bands when the propagation is getting worse? People already whine that they can't hear each other even though they live two states away running 1500 watts. Most of the time the bands don't have much activity unless you are totally into JT65/JT9/FT8 wham bam thank you ma'am type of contact.

Seems that the new bands will require one to experiment where the vast majority of today's hams jus buy ready made gear and antennas. They aren't interested in experimentation.

Is there something here other than generalizations against new hams and a "I don't do it, so it must not be real ham radio" thing?
Logged
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 1136




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2017, 08:50:16 AM »


Is there something here other than generalizations against new hams and a "I don't do it, so it must not be real ham radio" thing?


I think that sums it up well.
Logged
KM1H
Member

Posts: 2593




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2017, 12:50:26 PM »

Thankfully there will be little to none of the low ability modern ham on 630 and 2200 that pollutes the HF and lower VHF/UHF bands.
Note that 160 is a MF band, and at the other extreme you dont find them on 903 and above either Roll Eyes Grin
Logged
KD8IIC
Member

Posts: 665




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2017, 08:04:23 PM »

  Grumpy old men spout grumpy old stuff like a broken record, don't they??
  Not everyone is into just plug es play hamming OM!
  Some of us young whippersnappers are even getting pretty darn good at CW even though it's not required.
  So paint a gloomy picture somewhere else.
  No one has the time to listen to you gripe.
  We're all too busy having fun and doing something constructive.
  Get busy living or get busy dying....
Logged
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1598




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2017, 03:08:27 AM »

I'm not surprised about the OP's negative comment. In early 2014 I wrote an article asking why manufacturers like Yaesu, Icom and Kenwood routinely exclude the 220 mhz band in multi-band radios like the FT - 897/857 , Icom 706 and other popular multi-mode, multi-mode rigs...

I was rather shocked when hams actually defended the manufacturers saying that no one really uses that band. Really? 

So lets give the band to commercial interests then, after all 'no one uses the band'. While we are at it, why not give the 900 Mhz ham band to commercial interests. After all no is using that band either ....we don't need that many bands...right?


To date  no manufacturer, not a single one, not even the Chinese are making an multi-mode 220 Mhz rig. http://www.eham.net/articles/31298 No one is producing a 900 Mhz multi-mode rig either.


So the topic is about the 630/2200 meter bands, why discuss 220 Mhz?

Well, using that ill conceived logic for 220 Mhz....since no used the 630 and 2200 meter bands (before they became legal). Perhaps we should have given that to commercial interests? After all hams are not interested in 630/2200 meters ....because ...
Quote
"but why do we need two more ham bands"

Using the OP's logic...perhaps the WARC bands should have gone to the Maritime Mobile Service instead of radio amateurs because there were no amateur radio operators were using the bands before it became legal to use them. After all we already had 80/40/20 and 15 meters. And
Quote
"why do we need two more ham bands"


Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
KD8IIC
Member

Posts: 665




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2017, 04:29:52 AM »

  Seems 220 has Always Been the Red Headed Step Child.... 
I recall being an 11 yr old kid who regularly bought 73 and CQ magazines from a store owner who was a ham. Those issues were saying back in the mid / late 60's how 220 would go away if left in did-use as it was way back then.... so times change but the topic remains the same....
  220; Use it or lose it was the headline I recall, authored by Wayne Green w2nsd
Logged
AA2UK
Member

Posts: 363




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2017, 07:53:13 AM »

Well the reason we're not talking about the 222mhz band is we are in the LF/MF forum.
I for one have been in 222mHz SSB & CW since the 1990's.
73, AA2UK
Bill
Logged
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1598




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2017, 08:10:02 AM »

Well the reason we're not talking about the 222mhz band is we are in the LF/MF forum.
I for one have been in 222mHz SSB & CW since the 1990's.
73, AA2UK
Bill

And I'm illustrating the point that no matter band, some hams feel that the band isn't important because it isn't important to 'them'. 
Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
AA2UK
Member

Posts: 363




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2017, 08:36:11 AM »

Well the reason we're not talking about the 222mhz band is we are in the LF/MF forum.
I for one have been in 222mHz SSB & CW since the 1990's.
73, AA2UK
Bill

And I'm illustrating the point that no matter band, some hams feel that the band isn't important because it isn't important to 'them'. 
I actually totally agree...
73, Bill
AA2UK
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!