8 Jul
2013
8 Jul
'13
1:36 a.m.
Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive?
Readily available
COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz.
We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can show
value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes them
easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for instance
the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an uproar, but the
middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg.
Eric
AF6EP
It may be different in the US, but here "an uproar" (if any) is not going
to determine how bands are re-allocated. We have constructive discussion
with the license authority, but in the end we are not the ones that decide.
VHF/UHF band popularity has gone down anyway, because of license class
changes. Until a decade ago, there was a separate "no code" license class
that only allowed operation on VHF/UHF, and a "novice" class that allowed a
couple of sub-bands and lower power.
Then the code requirement was dropped for everyone, so now "no code" licensees
(like me) can operate on all HF bands. "novice" class were given access
to most of the HF bands as well. The result was that many active amateurs
who always wanted to be on HF but were restrained by the code or exam level
requirements now went there, and most DX activity the VHF/UHF bands vanished.
There now are only repeaters (mostly silent) and a couple of local channels
with very little activity. Tuning over the 2M band you may hear 2 or 3 QSOs.
This weekend there was a contest but I only heard a German and a UK station,
while a decade ago the SSB segment would be filled with activity.
As it is now, there are not enough active hams here to setup and sustain
something as involved as a data network. We had one in the past, but interest
dropped with the availability of internet for everyone. Sure one could
experiment with a link to a friend just for fun, but that is no significant
band use.
Unattended operation is more of a problem as well. We now need a special
permit for anything that transmits beyond of the direct control of the
operator. Presence of the operator while the gear is operating is no longer
sufficient. Such special permits are given only for fixed frequencies and
only in certain bands, and they also cost money.
Rob
PE1CHL
8 Jul
8 Jul
12:38 p.m.
New subject: 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 84
Eric,
With the degradation of 440 due to PAVPAWS 900 is actually very
popular on the east and west coasts(for voice). As 900 is also part
15 (shared with non-licensed users) inthe US and as well as most of
2.4 and some parts of 5 ghz and 3ghz are pretty safe. When you get up
higher than that you are talking big $ to operate. the only
commercial 10ghz stuff I have seen is the Icom "dstar" links.
To agree with you we could not give away 5ghz radios to hams at Dayton
this year. N4NEQ had wifi radios that would do 54mps for <$50 each
these had the now non-legit firmware that allows "compliance mode"
This mode allows users to select frequencies from 4-6ghz. They were
finally sold to an international non-ham group for use in LATAM I
think.
BTW I have 3 of these APs on a tower right now moved to the ham band
below the part 15 noise. There is not a lot of use but they are
there. I would love to turn the wick up to 10watts input power, but
again that is big bucks.
Lin N4YCI
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive? Readily
available
COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz.
We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can show
value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes them
easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for instance
the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an uproar, but the
middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg.
Eric
AF6EP
It may be different in the US, but here "an uproar" (if any) is not going
to determine how bands are re-allocated. We have constructive discussion
with the license authority, but in the end we are not the ones that decide.
VHF/UHF band popularity has gone down anyway, because of license class
changes. Until a decade ago, there was a separate "no code" license class
that only allowed operation on VHF/UHF, and a "novice" class that allowed a
couple of sub-bands and lower power.
Then the code requirement was dropped for everyone, so now "no code"
licensees
(like me) can operate on all HF bands. "novice" class were given access
to most of the HF bands as well. The result was that many active amateurs
who always wanted to be on HF but were restrained by the code or exam level
requirements now went there, and most DX activity the VHF/UHF bands
vanished.
There now are only repeaters (mostly silent) and a couple of local channels
with very little activity. Tuning over the 2M band you may hear 2 or 3 QSOs.
This weekend there was a contest but I only heard a German and a UK station,
while a decade ago the SSB segment would be filled with activity.
As it is now, there are not enough active hams here to setup and sustain
something as involved as a data network. We had one in the past, but
interest
dropped with the availability of internet for everyone. Sure one could
experiment with a link to a friend just for fun, but that is no significant
band use.
Unattended operation is more of a problem as well. We now need a special
permit for anything that transmits beyond of the direct control of the
operator. Presence of the operator while the gear is operating is no longer
sufficient. Such special permits are given only for fixed frequencies and
only in certain bands, and they also cost money.
Rob
PE1CHL
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
4156
days inactive
4156
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Lin Holcomb -
Rob Janssen