[NLRS] Important matter for VHFers

[Dr. Gerald N. Johnson]

Slow to respond because I have little more to say.


On 4/22/2011 10:35 PM, Austin - K0GEM wrote:
>
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> I respect everything you said.
>
> In my limited experience during "emergencies" (tornadoes, hurricanes,
> and local evacuations) the primary traffic was all conducted on 2m
> Repeaters.  HF was available for longer distance contacts to agencies
> one state over if needed.

And during tornadic events all had trouble from noise, especially HF 
even though noise wasn't heard on FM it limited the range compared to 
fair weather.
>
> With that said, could your logic not be applied to every frequency we
> use above 148mhz?  I mean how much Emergency Communication is used on
> 1.2ghz, 2.3ghz, etc?  And if any communications are being done on the
> 70cm, could we not move it to 2m?  Where does it stop?  If we lost
> everything above 54mhz, could the Ham community not adjust and do all of
> our communications on 6m or 10m?  Several HT's now have 6m FM built in.

True for the higher bands. Our hold on them is tenuous at best.

Around Ames 30+ years ago we did use 6m AM (with mostly 6ers) and 6m FM 
(without repeaters). The small antennas of hand helds severely limit the 
range and these days there are few repeaters because its hard to make a 
low cost and good antenna duplexor. Takes a lot of copper. I have one of 
those HTs with 6m. I don't scan much 6m and I don't think I've ever 
heard a signal on 6m. Even with big rigs that cover FM I've found fewer 
signals on FM than on CW. For distance, part of the problem is that the 
modes that open 6 most commonly are very frequency dependent so the 
beacon band opens before SSB and FM may not open at all. Then when a 
repeater is heard, its often toned and not documented in the repeater 
directory and some of my 6m rigs never had tone capability anyway, at 
least not readily changed in frequency.

Before that in the St. Louis area (though there was some 2m FM activity, 
essentially private networks dating before 1959) ARES used 29.640 AM. 
And few antennas cut for the low end of the band worked well there.
>
> I agree that we have a very weak position if public service is our only
> defense to defending our frequencies.  So what are other positions that
> we can use?  Is it better education of the contributions that hams have
> made over the years from innovation and experimentation on our
> frequencies?  Better PR to show that we aren't just a bunch of "weird
> guys with outrageous antennas for our CB Radios?"

THAT IS the challenge.
>
> I was always taught that we had use of our frequencies as a "reward" for
> our personal investments monetarily as well as time to be prepared in
> the case we are called upon to provide emergency communications. How do
> we convey this general belief in a way that better positions us against
> the threats to our frequencies?

This was very true 70 years ago at the beginning of WW2. Many a ham was 
drafted to be an instant radio operator and many were promoted to 
commissioned officers to command and teach radio operations using ham 
gear the government bought from hams without bands.
>
> I welcome any ideas.  I just don't want to sit back and watch big
> business and big government take away our frequencies.

They are working on just that. And without respect from working 
emergencies after the cell phones go down (like they did 9/11 and other 
events like the three day emergency of flight 232 where cell phones 
didn't run beyond the first half day unless swapped for a charged phone) 
they will gain frequencies at our cost. Its time to remind those making 
decisions of how ham radio benefited US society and government in such 
situations. And to show that government radio communication conditions 
are not perfected by those events, but we have to admit they are improved.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Austin, K0GEM
>
> -----------
> Austin - K0GEM
> e-mail: austin at k0gem.us
> web:  www.k0gem.us
> Twitter: k0gem
> APRS: K0GEM-9
>
>
73, Jerry, K0CQ