ETCC POSITION ON 2 METRE BAND DEVELOPMENT
FURTHER EXPLANATION / COMMENT Comments
phillip hardacre 17 Jun 2010, 02:30
beleive it or not some people dont want dstar, icom make dstar repeaters
for 1.2gig and radios for that band too put them all there.
bob parsons gw1csu 01 Feb 2010, 22:57
I think you guys are right keep digital d-stars on 70cm & above,plenty of
room there to experiment.
If range is a issue interlink them! Review the situation after a while,then see if change is needed. Its bad enough the 6m & 2m band is muddled up with wide and narrow deviation settings on repeaters and users of old & new equipment either not knowing or just confused,let alone putting digital modes in the mix too with dual mode on 2m band. Keep it simple,keep it analogue
MICK THOMPSON 10 Nov 2009, 12:43
EASY SOLVED, PUT ALL DSTAR REPEATERS ON 70CM SIMPLE.THEN 70CM WILL GET MORE
USE
Richard Corso 04 Aug 2009, 10:37
This is typical of the UK these days - disorganised and underfunded. ALL
D-Star systems should be on 70cm and above and NOT on 2M. Many of the
inactive repeaters should also be moved onto 70cm. This way you end up with
a reasonable amount of bandwidth for local QSO's and very active
repeaters.
What's the problem there - no recrystallising, simply move the problem to a very un-utilised band - 70cm
Andy C 16 Apr 2009, 22:22
There's a simple answer: if there is no room on 2m then use 70cm and bring
more activity to a much underused band.
Ian Foord 23 Mar 2009, 16:13
As a repeater / comms eng for many years i fully agree with the ETCC
statment re the 2m band . Down hear in sussex we have almost no dstar
coverage and if that means "re jiging"
the channels to free up some space ,then so be it . If a repeater is so old that i cant make a freq change ,them may be it should not be on air at all . Ian G0TJH Tech for GB3LR / SR / BR
Rob Compton 20 Mar 2009, 18:55
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. The ETCC should see to re-plan the 2m
repeater network. The cost of re-programming or re-crystalling the
equipment is negligable in comparison with the benefit to ALL radio
amateurs. It would be a good exercise for repeater keepers/operators to
give their equipment a well earned spot of preventative maintenance.
If the RSGB/ETCC has no power to directly revoke NoV's, then the support of Ofcom should be counselled. If it means that voice repeater NoV's become renewable on a bi-annual, or tri-annual basis, then there would be pressure on keepers to maintain their existing equipment. Repeaters that do not perform should be given the chance to up their performance/re-site or relinquish the channel to someone that is willing to put the effort in. There are too many small groups who do not have the means to operate repeaters properly, and their half hearted approach does nothing more than damage the "network". Yes, there is a reduction in the number of users, quite dramatically, but those users often feel that repeaters are a "right" and something that they do not have to pay for/donate to/support. What we are seeing now is the survival of the fittest, yet the repeater network is being dragged down by the sick and unwilling, and it is very frustrating. It is also very frustrating when sick and ailing repeaters refuse the help of the larger groups (which may have been replacement equipment, or a better site, or both), all because of personal issues. It is the end-users that suffer. And finally - it should be mandatory that repeater keepers are *NOT* particulars withheld, or at least issue a mobile telephone number or a valid email address such that members of the amateur public can contact them directly. I'm sure that Mr McCullagh will have plenty of reasons why it can't be done, even though there are very good reasons why it should be done - namely good housekeeping of the amateur network, and the duty of care to amateur radio VHF mobile operating in the UK. |
|---|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Top | Homepage | About | Contact Us | Feedback | Links | Minutes | Privacy Policy
| ||