Link I have used many time. I see I have to type in the character string to search now. Thats new! :-(
Will narrowbanding effect ham radio?
- Status
Personally, I think narrowbanding should be required of Amateur Radio. There's way too many operators out there that don't know jack diddley, get a bunch of equipment that they have no idea about, and start blasting away on the airwaves. The FCC tests for Radiotelephone used to be hard to pass and that was for a very good reason. You had to actually know something about electronics and RF systems to get a license in those days. Now you have these "hobbyists" that buy something and have no clue about what it really does. Couple that with a Tim Taylor complex, and lo and behold they end up splattering RF all over the place. If it was up to me I would mandate TX isolators and RX filter systems on any and ALL systems radiating over 25W ERP. I would also enact mandates requiring systems to stay within certain ERP levels. For example Portables limited to 5W, Mobiles limited to 25W, Base stations 50W and Repeaters 100W. In RF crowded areas base stations would be limited to 35W and repeaters will be limited to 75W. Those of us who maintain repeater systems and associated radio equipment professionally have to live within the requirements set forth by the FCC and by the licenses granted to us. We have to take every step possible to prevent interference which includes isolation, filtering, and ERP limitations. Why shouldn't everyone else play by the rules? If things keep going as they are HAM radio will turn into nothing more than a bunch of CBers with learners permits.
James_Bond_007
Member
what do you mean turn into? have you been on 2 meters or 75/80 meters lately? think we are already there.
My thoughts exactly
My other thoughts on it are that ham radio should evenutally narrowband, to stay in the times with PS agencies and the like. If we are operating outdated equipment, sure we can still talk to each other, but the interoperability aspect goes out the window.
That is the single most ridiculous reason to go narrow band on the ham bands that I have seen to date. Narrow band radios exist to solve particular spectrum issues on commercial bands that simply don't exist on the ham bands.
How would a narrow banding mandate on the ham bands help this?
We already have power limitations. But your one-size-fits-all approach would prove to be unreasonable and unworkable for a great many people. I'm glad it's NOT up to you. Isolators and filtering are good engineering practice, in circumstances where it's needed, like of crowded repeater sites. But it shouldn't be mandated in ALL cases. It should be decided on a case by case basis. Isolators and filters frequently are mandated by intelligent site owners on all repeater equipment in their sites, but the way you word this, you'd require it for home stations and mobiles, as well. Gross overkill.
And commercial systems are engineered for a different purpose, and have a different set if constraints.
Hams DO have to play by the rules. But it's a different set of rules from the commercial stuff for a reason.
That's a tired old argument with no merit and no factual basis to back it up. Hams have been complaining about poor operating habits on 75 meters since the 1930's. It is what it is... And forcing a narrow band mandate will do absolutely nothing to solve it.
What interoperability? Ham equipment isn't allowed to communicate directly on public safety channels anyway, so what does it matter? Where is the interoperability? What aspect of interoperability would be enhanced by operating the ham channels on a narrow band mode? Look at what happened when narrow banding first happened in the 60's. Commercial services went from 15 KHz deviation to 5, so a ton of 15 KHz equipment was made available. The FM craze started. Later, when more 5 KHz deviation equipment became available, hams migrated to it... because it was there. When vast quantities of 2.5 KHz deviation equipment becomes available, hams will once again grab it, and build systems with it. But nowhere in the process was "interoperability" ever a factor in changing bandwidths on the ham bands. It wasn't a factor then, and it isn't now.
obviously hams arent allowed to communicate directly with PS, but I guess I wasnt clear enough. Will current ham radio manufacturers keep making narrowband compliant radios? Lets say that there is a motorola radio programmed in a mobile command post for the HAMS to use in the event they are asked to help. Lets also say this is a few years down the road and most new ham radios arent made without narrowband for some reason... now the CP cant talk to other hams that are out at there posts, so they have to take the time to set up a second radio, power supply and antenna in the mobiel command post when they could have just used the equipment that was avaliable. I dont really care either way with ham radio and narrowbanding, but im in PS and see the other side of how it works...just my two cents.
No, and actually you weren't real clear this time around. I'll muddle through with what I understand you're trying to say...
What do you mean "keep making"? With very few possible exceptions, they're not making narrow band compliant radios for the ham market now. Most of the current crop of ham radios with "narrow band" on their menus aren't really "compliant". They merely reduce the deviation so that they won't slam the skirts of a narrow band receiver's IF filters, but there's a whole lot more to being "compliant" than that.
Ok... as you wrote this, you're saying that a few years down the road, only narrow band ham radios will be available. So... then, where's the problem, if you're trying to get ham radios to narrowband? Or do you mean that most new ham radios aren't made WITH narrowband for some reason. Then you may have a compatibility issue if you're trying to use a commercial radio that won't do "wideband" talking to ham systems that won't do narrowband. Is that what you meant?
I have never, ever, in over 35 years of public safety communications, EVER, seen a command post for an organization that utilizes hams as a resource, that didn't have a completely separate operating position equipped with reasonably current model ham gear. In other words, setting up a second radio is a big "so what?". Using interoperability is an invalid argument for a narrow band mandate in the ham bands. It means nothing. And right now, there are NO arguments, even congestion and over crowding, that would justify a narrow band mandate on the ham bands. It's an area that is ripe for experimentation, for people so inclined, but there's no good reasons right now to mandate it.
Last edited:
okay fine, your right im wrong, your perfect, im stupid. Thats what I get from you responses. Its people like you that make me hate Radio Referance, have a wonderful day.
Nowhere in my response to you did I say you were stupid.
And it's comments like that that make me wonder how people like you manage to deal with differences of opinion in real life. Discuss your opinion. Justify your reasoning. Convince me, or not. There's nothing wrong with your opinion, I'm just stating that the arguments in favor are flawed as you presented them. It's not meant to be personal, so don't make it personal.
n4yek
Member
There is no requirement for them to make ham radios narrow band, so there isn't anything to be compliant with.
James_Bond_007
Member
start making all new ham radios able to be set for narrow or wide. then after the market gets saturated with these new radios especially as older radios break down and get replaced and the O.F.'s die off we could start switching repeaters over to narrow band. not an immediate solution but 10 years down the road we may need narrow band on ham if we start now we will get radios that are narrowband ready into the hands of hams and then it will just be a matter of going from wide to narrow with the flip of a switch in users radios and changing out rf decks in a repeater.
Exactly.
What I meant when referring to "compliant" is radios that adhere to the Part 90 narrow band technical requirements, meaning emissions masks, frequency stability, IF filters, occupied bandwidth, etc, as opposed to the amateur radio practice of simply cutting the deviation in half.
It will be a market driven change. If hams demand it, and won't buy radios without it, then it will happen. Otherwise, unless there's an FCC mandate, there is no real incentive for manufacturers to start shipping out more expensive dual mode radios.
Make it 20 years, and you're probably on a realistic timeline. And in 20 years, there may be an actual need, as opposed to the imaginary need that exists today.
James_Bond_007
Member
i'm in agreement any narrow banding in the amateur bands should be done to part 90 standards not just the cheap cut deviation in half method amateur operators are so fond of.
James_Bond_007
Member
either way. start now and there won't be a problem when there is an actual need.
Oh I deal with the crap on the 2 meters on a daily basis when they bleedover into the Air band. Luckily for them it isn't more than a minor annoyance and hasn't affected certain agencies YET. And on the HF side I try to avoid their shenanigans like the plague. I miss the OLD days of HF when us maintainers operated the stuff. Once they let the uninitiated, untrained, and inept get their fingers into the equipment it all went straight into the toilet. The 0200 phone calls from some yahoo who managed to fault out the system or screw up the key load got old real quick.
reedeb
Member
I must disagree. Narrowbanding is NOT needed for Amateur Radio!! It is a HOBBY not public Service NOT business. There may be areas where repeaters are junbling each ither BUT that is because they are all vying for a space in one area. So many people want to own a repeater for THEIR exclusive bragging rights. Narrow banding will NOT help. Folks need to work with waht is out there.
Someone mentioned Hams coming over aircraft bands? Where? How? Is this on an aircraft radio itself, or off a scanner? Maybe the repeater is too close to an airport or MAYBE it's just YOUR radio or scanner. BTW I've sat next to a Police cruiser and chatted on my dualband mobile at full power and NEVER came across HIS radio.
As for 2 meter sounding like CBers with learner permits, sounds like it in YOUR area not mine. Many folks who cross over from CB MIGHT have some habits they need to get rid of [I know I and others did]. Have YOU spoken to them about it? have YOU explained to them what they were doing was wrong or teach them the correct way? OR are you sitting back making smartass remarks about them as they are not the seasoned operator YOU feel YOU are.
MOST hams should be willing to help newer ones learn these things and GENTLY teach them what they are doing is not kosher on HAM as it might be on CB. Think back to when you started out were you perfect all the time? Did YOU make mistakes? Did someone explain to you what you did wrong? I think they MIGHT have.
Someone mentioned Hams coming over aircraft bands? Where? How? Is this on an aircraft radio itself, or off a scanner? Maybe the repeater is too close to an airport or MAYBE it's just YOUR radio or scanner. BTW I've sat next to a Police cruiser and chatted on my dualband mobile at full power and NEVER came across HIS radio.
As for 2 meter sounding like CBers with learner permits, sounds like it in YOUR area not mine. Many folks who cross over from CB MIGHT have some habits they need to get rid of [I know I and others did]. Have YOU spoken to them about it? have YOU explained to them what they were doing was wrong or teach them the correct way? OR are you sitting back making smartass remarks about them as they are not the seasoned operator YOU feel YOU are.
MOST hams should be willing to help newer ones learn these things and GENTLY teach them what they are doing is not kosher on HAM as it might be on CB. Think back to when you started out were you perfect all the time? Did YOU make mistakes? Did someone explain to you what you did wrong? I think they MIGHT have.
W2NJS
Member
deleted
Last edited:
- Status
