[SixClub] 6m repeaters for Alabama

[Chris Boone]

Oh I AGREE Mike......that was my intention in proposing Texas go to the
-1.7MHz split in 1997!!!
BUT politics get in the way....S CA thinks bandplans should be based on 30+
yr old radios like Motracs, Mstr Pros, etc! How many people that use six use
such rigs nowadays?? FEW if any........How many run commercial modern rigs
like Midlands, GE Deltas, Motorola SyntorXX and other rigs that can work
more than 500kHz wide? PLENTY...how many use or would buy an amateur six
meter rig ??? MUCH MORE!!!
So WHY do we continue to base a plan on such obsolete rigs?? Does S CA know
something we don't? (like Motracs, etc will come back into favor? :) I DOUBT
IT......Even a MICOR or GE MSTR II can work the 1.7 MHz split plan with
little problem...Ive seen it done.....

The 1.7 MHz split uses the entire 3 MHz, places USERS xmtrs at least 1+ MHz
away from TV 2, places ALL rptrs inputs at least 1.5 MHz away from TV2 and
puts ALL inputs AND outputs in ONE range that almost any radio can
cover..plus antennas!
The farthest a user's antenna must cover with a low SWR would be 51-52.7
MHz....much easier to do than the S CA 500kHz plan where a user could be
expected to have to cover 51-53.5 on their xmt SWR range!!!! HOW is the 500
kHz split better? It ISN'T!! It is based on ancient technology......the rest
of the country is moving to 1.7 MHz (all MACC coordinated areas are now
using that plan) if they are not staying on the old -1Mhz plan which only
utilizes 2 Mhz of the 3 Mhz available (unless you live in Texas where the TX
VHF FM Suxciety believes they can put OUTPUTS and INPUTS on the same range
of 52Mhz!!! REALLY FOLKS!! That's like putting an output of a rptr on
146.34!!! HUH???? WHO is kidding WHO? BTW that plan in Texas was NEVER voted
on and accepted by the membership as REQUIRED by the Bylaws of the
Society....guess certain people on the Board of Directors are above the
rules...)

My Midland Syntech II works just fine on the -1 and -1.7 splits..I COULD put
the 500 kHz splits in there but I have yet to have a need for them...99% of
the repeaters I hear are on either 1 or 1.7 offset...

Western Washington ARA (the coordinating group that came up with the 1.7
offset) lambasted the ARRL for "dictating" the 500 kHz S CA plan to the rest
of the country....funny, noone really adopted it after that.....talk about a
failure in making a plan! I say ALL 6m rptr ops should be polled and a vote
taken on a national plan...but that wont happen

Chris
WB5ITT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sixclub-bounces at mailman.qth.net 

> Mike wrote
> 
> I find it simply amazing that the single VHF+ band that could 
> benefit the most from a nationally recognized band is the 
> most fouled up of the bunch.
> 
> I have a FT-8900 in the car with a 1/4 wave mono-band whip 
> for 50 MHz and spend a lot of time behind the windshield 
> <80,000 mi/yr> and would love to see a national repeater plan 
> where I could program in all standard repeater pairs along 
> with all standard and common simplex frequencies so while I'm 
> on the road I could have it in scan mode and could be 
> listening for Q's <while traveling I don't actively call Q's 
> unless in a somewhat rare grid>.
> 
> The most I would have to do is find the CTCSS tone if I came 
> across activity.  However I don't want to have to program in 
> all the different splits or inverted inputs and outputs that 
> populate the 50 MHz band, it could potentially eat up all 800 
> memories <exaggerating>
> 
> I don't want to dump on Gene <W3ZZ> but maybe he could help?