nd5y
Member
Only in some areas near the Canadian border and that happened a long time ago.
Bill proposed to extend Narrowbanding by 2 years
- Thread starter grem467
- Start date
- Status
W4JLR
Member
Just wondering cause the house bill I read (PDF above link) included some of those frequencies
nd5y
Member
I misread that. It is 420-430 MHz that hams can't use near certain Canadian border areas.
The Narrowbanding rule does NOT affect amateur radio AT ALL.
It does affect the 420-430 MHz PLM frequencies used in certain Canadian border areas.
The Narrowbanding rule does NOT affect amateur radio AT ALL.
It does affect the 420-430 MHz PLM frequencies used in certain Canadian border areas.
Last edited:
W2NJS
Member
Apologies to all for incorrect use of the word. I meant to say NARROWBANDING above in my post.
Why extend it? It isn't as though the deadline came out of nowhere. There is NO reason/excuse why anyone shouldn't be compliant by the deadline. Any agency who hasn't come into compliance deserves every dollar of fine they get from the FCC.
radioman2001
Member
I hope you are not part of the LMCC, because that's not what my co-ordinator has been saying for the last 3 years. In reference to VHF only, there will be NO additional VHF channels available with 12.5 kc narrow banding. The rules that are in effect now( in reference to interference contours and incumbent protection) will still apply due to that there will be insufficient guard space between them. When everyone is FORCED to 6.25 channels after 2020 or longer then the spacing will be enough for more channels. In reference to the AAR which handle all Rail Road co-ordination, there are NO NEW 12.5kc channels available. They have set into their policy of FORCING all NEW licensees into 6.25 channels, with NO exceptions. I tried to get 100 of the splinters from 2008 until their new rules in 2011. All the AAR kept doing was delaying my applications, it's only when I went to the FCC did these new rules come into effect. It has been their intention all along to do this.
As far as Texas, maybe you should go 700 mhz, or go 6.25 for your channels. For those that already narrow banded, good for you, but for some agencies that don't just have a few radios, like under 100 pieces ( my agency has over 5000 pieces of equipment) this buys time and helps money wise by allowing us to spread the costs over a few more years. Now for those that say we should have see this coming, maybe, but when you had just replaced all your equipment the year (1995) this all went into effect changing again was not an option.
If enough agencies jump on this bill, I can bet you it will pass.
As far as Texas, maybe you should go 700 mhz, or go 6.25 for your channels. For those that already narrow banded, good for you, but for some agencies that don't just have a few radios, like under 100 pieces ( my agency has over 5000 pieces of equipment) this buys time and helps money wise by allowing us to spread the costs over a few more years. Now for those that say we should have see this coming, maybe, but when you had just replaced all your equipment the year (1995) this all went into effect changing again was not an option.
If enough agencies jump on this bill, I can bet you it will pass.
Don’t believe narrowbanding delay rumor - Nov 22, 2011 11:56 AM, By Alan Tilles
http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law/commentary/narrowband-delay-rumors-false-20111122/
http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law/commentary/narrowband-delay-rumors-false-20111122/
- Status
