[NLRS] Two meter net posible changing frequency.

[Andy Lokken]

Hi all:

I wonder about how to catch folks who haven't heard any of this
conversation we've been witnessing on email. The rest of us aren't an
issue, we'll just arrive on whatever frequency is agreed upon- but
what about those not on the reflector?

FWIW, I would vote for 144.240 because if you didn't know the net had
moved, the odds you would encounter it accidentally on '240 are
greater than '260 since most likely leave their 2 meter rig parked on
144.200- No matter how much we may wish they'd spin the knob a little
further.

Coupled with the fact that '260 has a role as K9JK mentioned, no
matter how rare it may be, makes '240 a better option in my mind.

Andy K0AJL






On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:12 PM, John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK
<hamk9jk at ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
> Matt, Jon, others,
>
> I don't have a horse in this race as I don't check into the net...
>
> BUT, BEFORE the agreement to move to 144.260 is finalized and "in
> spite of" the SWOT history that Jon cited, might I remind that 144.260
> seems to be the "standing" (and nationwide?) liaison frequency on 2m
> SSB for GHz and up coordination/talkback.
>
> 144.240 "sounds better" to me BUT, as I noted, I don't have a horse in
> this race.
>
> Will there EVER be "conflict" if the net moves to 144.260? Likely not,
> or very minimal, but at least worthy of consideration before
> finalizing said decision.
>
> Anyone else have any comments or thoughts?
>
> 73, JK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Arthur" <mattda at hickorytech.net>
> To: <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>; <w0zq at aol.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:56
> Subject: Re: [NLRS] Two meter net posible changing frequency.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > 260 will work for me fine.
> >
> > I think we should let people know we will be mooving the net.
> >
> > some have memntioned the idea of buying the fire department a
> > scanner the
> > problem is i am really thinking that there is more then one of these
> > old
> > things out there.
> >
> > I sure as hell don't want to get in the buying new scanners for the
> > hole
> > town.
> > i am sure there at least two that are causing the problem.
> >
> > I think 260 will be fine.
> > i say lets make the change the first week in June.
> > this will give us time to inform people of the change.
> > Thanks 73 Matt ka0pqw
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <w0zq at aol.com>
> > To: <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NLRS] Two meter net posible changing frequency.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Matt and all. As I recall, back in the "old days", the SWOT
> >> 2m group
> > used 144.260 for nets. In the spirit of continuation, I would
> > recommend
> > 144.260 over 144.240. In addition, I think other nets around the
> > country
> > also tend to use 144.260 .... perhaps for the same reason.
> >>
> >>
> >> 73, Jon
> >>
> >> W0ZQ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> NLRS mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > NLRS mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html



--
_______________________________________
Andy Lokken