[NLRS] Two meter net posible changing frequency.

[Matt Arthur]

Hi John,
I think scence the net is only on for an hour on Sunday night i really don't
expect any problem.
Thanks for your input
73 Matt ka0pqw
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK" <hamk9jk at ameritech.net>
To: <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [NLRS] Two meter net posible changing frequency.


>
>
> 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