Will narrowbanding effect ham radio?

[N4KVE]

While it might not be a big expense for some people to purchase a narrow band radio, [Astro Sabers, XTS 3000's & others are pretty cheap now] what about the repeater owner who has a system with 5 remote receivers? That would be a huge chunk of change for a repeater owner to lay out. Because of the upcoming deadline, commercial wideband repeaters will soon be available on the cheap, so I really don't see repeater owners lining up to purchase expensive narrow band repeaters. Right now is a great time for amateurs to purchase perfectly good but "outdated" FM equipment. GARY N4KVE

 

[zz0468]

Oh I deal with the crap on the 2 meters on a daily basis...

But what does any of this have to do with rebanding on the amateur bands?

 

[James_Bond_007]

i've been saying require manufacturers to put a narrow band capability in equipment now and things will naturally fall into place over the course of time and everyone should be narrow band ready when the time comes that it becomes absolutely necessary to do so.

 

[zz0468]

i've been saying require manufacturers to put a narrow band capability in equipment now and things will naturally fall into place over the course of time and everyone should be narrow band ready when the time comes that it becomes absolutely necessary to do so.

But who should require it? The FCC doesn't care one wit whether or not we narrowband. So, to have them "require" it would amount to unnecessary government intrusion in a service that is, by the FCC's own definition, "self regulating".

If we want it, we need to persuade the manufacturers that we're willing to pay extra for that capability, and hams are notoriously cheap.

It's something that will evolve when and if the need arises, just like all other mode changes have evolved.

 

[James_Bond_007]

oh come on that is no longer the case, one glance through the classifieds section here will reveal many 10k plus dollar radios that hams buy and sell used!!!! hams can't be that cheap these days. all the hams i hear on 2m here all talk about their latest 3k dollar SDR mobiles and their state of the are xtl series motorolas and their 5k plus HF base station with big tower arrays. the pre nineties days of cheap hams are over. now you get on two meters and talk with a 200.00 radio and try to talk about techie things that doesn't involve figuring out how to use that 3k plus mobile then you will get ignored off the repeater. anyone who has talked on 2 meters or 440 in recent years will know exactly what i'm talking about. most hams have developed that elitist attitude (that CB'ers got when it came to so called big radios) toward people who don't have the latest high end multi kilobuck radio setup.

 

[zz0468]

oh come on that is no longer the case, one glance through the classifieds section here will reveal many 10k plus dollar radios that hams buy and sell used!!!!

Go on over to qrz.com and take a look at all the threads that discussed requiring PL tone on repeaters, and the multitudes of cheap hams that weighed in saying that would force them to either modify or replace their 25 year old radios.

And in the end, your argument still doesn't address who would require manufacturers to do this. The FCC still doesn't care, and hams would still have to pay the bill.

 

[IDCowboy1]

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.

Spectrum issues don't exist on the HAM bands.....Interesting. So why is it that you guys have license requirements, power limitations, isolators being mandated by site owners, and FCC rules in general on the gloriously perfect HAM bands? That's what really bugs me about HAM OPERATORS. Too shortsighted to see past their own egos. The private and public sector has been complying with the things I laid out(power requirements, filtering, and staying within those requirements) for YEARS. At least 20 years that I personally know of, since I've maintained HF, VHF, and UHF systems for that 20 years. There's no difference between HAMs and everyone else when it comes to Part 15 and federal law kids. Maybe you guys should start including that in your testing. I personally maintain a Moto P25 narrowbanded conventional system in the 150MHz range. My repeater is set at 100W, my base stations are set at 50W and my mobiles are set at 25W IAW with rule and license. I have isolators and cans on my repeater and isolators on my base stations. Now with all that crap on there I still have NO troubles with a 70 mile range in MOUNTAINOUS Northern Nevada. I have no special gain antennas, no tricked out little toys, no nothing. Bone stock Moto with a zetron phone patch. Now you tell me how the things I laid out won't work for the HAM people. HF is a whole different animal, but the 2 meter and 400 MHz folks can get over it and get on board with the rest of us. Oh and BTW, the 2m band butts right up against the VHF civil and military air band which is 116 to 149.975 MHz. So we get plenty of splatter when some operator decides to crank it up a tad.

 

[zz0468]

Spectrum issues don't exist on the HAM bands.....Interesting.

Your comprehension level of what I wrote is close to zero. I said that the issues that dictate narrow banding on the Part 90 frequencies don't exist on the ham bands. The ham bands have their own, different issues.

So why is it that you guys have license requirements, power limitations, isolators being mandated by site owners, and FCC rules in general on the gloriously perfect HAM bands? That's what really bugs me about HAM OPERATORS. Too shortsighted to see past their own egos.

Ah, I'm starting to see what your problem is. You have a problem with ham radio in general, not a specific issue with narrow banding. Ok... fair enough.

Edit: Now I DO know what your issue is. Some ham neighbor is interfering with your scanner:

http://forums.radioreference.com/un...x-i-have-3-them-anybody-else.html#post1647830

Well, chances are quite good that ther's nothing wrong with the transmitter, and it's your scanner that's easily overloaded. I'd even bet you have a preamp on it.

The private and public sector has been complying with the things I laid out(power requirements, filtering, and staying within those requirements) for YEARS.

Amateur radio DOES have technical requirements. I invite you to read 47CFR, Part 97, Subpart D.

There's no difference between HAMs and everyone else when it comes to Part 15 and federal law kids. Maybe you guys should start including that in your testing.

What's your point? This is completely irrelevant. :roll:

I personally maintain a Moto P25 narrowbanded conventional system in the 150MHz range. My repeater is set at 100W, my base stations are set at 50W and my mobiles are set at 25W IAW with rule and license.

And I personally maintain a dozen 800 trunked systems, conventional VHF and UHF, microwave, dispatch centers, and.. .and... and... And again, this is irrelevant. Part 90 requirements are completely different from Part 97 requirements.

I have isolators and cans on my repeater and isolators on my base stations. Now with all that crap on there I still have NO troubles with a 70 mile range in MOUNTAINOUS Northern Nevada.

And yet again, this is irrelevant. What does any of this have to do with narrow banding on the ham bands?

I have no special gain antennas, no tricked out little toys, no nothing. Bone stock Moto with a zetron phone patch. Now you tell me how the things I laid out won't work for the HAM people.

Well, for one, it seems awful limited. Hams can pretty much configure their repeaters to whatever the need, skill level, and ability to pay for it is.

HF is a whole different animal, but the 2 meter and 400 MHz folks can get over it and get on board with the rest of us.

Get on board with what, exactly? While you're answering that, perhaps you could explain WHY hams should get on board with whatever it is you're doing. And doing it because you say so won't cut it. Provide sound technical or legal reasons.

Oh and BTW, the 2m band butts right up against the VHF civil and military air band which is 116 to 149.975 MHz. So we get plenty of splatter when some operator decides to crank it up a tad.

I'm sure that's been known to happen, but I would venture to guess that hams get the short end of the stick when it comes to who interferes with who, just because of the sheer numbers of commercial and public safety transmitters out there. So, once again, your comments are moot in terms of the thread's subject matter.

In terms of out of band emissions that cause interference, there are existing standards and rules in place to address adequately address that. So, there's nothing broken to fix.

If you'd like to create a separate thread about ham radio vs commercial and public safety radio, then maybe that's what you should do. In the meantime, nothing you've said here has anything whatosever to do with the question about narrow banding on the ham bands. And by nothing, I mean nada, zilch, zero, zip.

 

[reedeb]

. Oh and BTW, the 2m band butts right up against the VHF civil and military air band which is 116 to 149.975 MHz. So we get plenty of splatter when some operator decides to crank it up a tad.

So how does FM transmissions bleed over on AM.? Someone is trying to wee on my shoulder and tell me it's raining.[ with melting sarcasm intended]

 

[IDCowboy1]

So how does FM transmissions bleed over on AM.? Someone is trying to wee on my shoulder and tell me it's raining.[ with melting sarcasm intended]

Well I could spend the next 20 minutes of my life wasting my breath to educate you on how RF intereference works, but instead of that.....Why don't you GOOGLE it?? Or better yet I could give a phone number to call and a certain spectrum manager can inform you on how a FD got their FM modulated alarm monitoring system shut down because it was interefering with an AM ATC frequency there smart guy. Have fun with that rain thing.

 

[nd5y]

If you have a trashy transmitter putting out spurs or harmonics in the aircraft band it makes no difference whether it is AM or FM. It can still cause harmful interference.

 

[zz0468]

If you have a trashy transmitter putting out spurs or harmonics in the aircraft band it makes no difference whether it is AM or FM. It can still cause harmful interference.

I did some digging... he has a ham interfering with his scanner.

 

[IDCowboy1]

Your comprehension level of what I wrote is close to zero. I said that the issues that dictate narrow banding on the Part 90 frequencies don't exist on the ham bands. The ham bands have their own, different issues.



Ah, I'm starting to see what your problem is. You have a problem with ham radio in general, not a specific issue with narrow banding. Ok... fair enough.



Amateur radio DOES have technical requirements. I invite you to read 47CFR, Part 97, Subpart D.



What's your point? This is completely irrelevant. :roll:



And I personally maintain a dozen 800 trunked systems, conventional VHF and UHF, microwave, dispatch centers, and.. .and... and... And again, this is irrelevant. Part 90 requirements are completely different from Part 97 requirements.



And yet again, this is irrelevant. What does any of this have to do with narrow banding on the ham bands?



Well, for one, it seems awful limited. Hams can pretty much configure their repeaters to whatever the need, skill level, and ability to pay for it is.



Get on board with what, exactly? While you're answering that, perhaps you could explain WHY hams should get on board with whatever it is you're doing. And doing it because you say so won't cut it. Provide sound technical or legal reasons.



I'm sure that's been known to happen, but I would venture to guess that hams get the short end of the stick when it comes to who interferes with who, just because of the sheer numbers of commercial and public safety transmitters out there. So, once again, your comments are moot in terms of the thread's subject matter.

In terms of out of band emissions that cause interference, there are existing standards and rules in place to address adequately address that. So, there's nothing broken to fix.

If you'd like to create a separate thread about ham radio vs commercial and public safety radio, then maybe that's what you should do. In the meantime, nothing you've said here has anything whatosever to do with the question about narrow banding on the ham bands. And by nothing, I mean nada, zilch, zero, zip.

And your comprehension of what I wrote is absolutely zero. People narrowband because it takes up less of the RF spectrum which means more channels. I would think that you HAMS would love that since it would give you soooooo much more territory within your own bands. Number two reason is that it helps reduce interference in large areas that are packed with radio systems. If you limit the bandwidth of a transmission the likelihood of cross channel interference is reduced. This would keep HAM radio transmitters confined to a narrow bandwidth that would keep splatter down. This would again help the HAMs becuase of what you said about you guys seemingly getting the shaft and the blame when things go south. You can look and say see we are compliant and its not our equipment and neener neener neener. Since you guys are buying up all these "new" Moto portables and XTLs, let's see why it would be a good idea to get on board with commercial and government requirements.....hmmmmm do the words INDUSTRY STANDARD mean anything?? Pretty much everything commercially(the big three Moto, EF Johnson, Harris) made in the 2m and UHF 400 MHz range that is going to be sold in the future will be narrowband only, so you might as well get used to it. It's going to come down the pipe sooner or later. Especially when the next generation of radio systems(Open Sky, 700 MHz, etc) comes along and the market will be flooded with this "old" narrowband only equipment and that's all you will be able to get ahold of. All the wideband stuff will no longer have parts made and you guys will be having to search the junkyards for it. I think that dissertation should satisfy your more than zero requirement, and if you still can't accept the fact that it's a good idea and bound to happen anyway, then so solly for you GI.

 

[IDCowboy1]

I did some digging... he has a ham interfering with his scanner.

Actually your assumption is incorrect. I used a scanner and a spec an to narrow down who it was and where it was coming from. Who I work for and what exactly I do is really none of your concern, so we will leave it at that.

 

[zz0468]

And your comprehension of what I wrote is absolutely zero. People narrowband because it takes up less of the RF spectrum which means more channels. I would think that you HAMS would love that since it would give you soooooo much more territory within your own bands.

When that becomes a current issue on the ham bands, hams will jump to narrow band. But right now, it's a solution looking for a problem. Even in areas like Los Angeles, which is arguably one of the most complex and congested RF environments in the world, there isn't a need for narrow banding to create more channels in the ham bands.

Number two reason is that it helps reduce interference in large areas that are packed with radio systems. If you limit the bandwidth of a transmission the likelihood of cross channel interference is reduced.

Oh? That's an interesting theory. So, you cut the bandwidth in half, stuff the spectrum with twice as many transmitters and that reduces interference potential?

Your thinking on that is flawed.

This would keep HAM radio transmitters confined to a narrow bandwidth that would keep splatter down. This would again help the HAMs becuase of what you said about you guys seemingly getting the shaft and the blame when things go south.

Narrow banding is useful for solving specific problems. It is not a magic cure all for an improperly operated transmitter... or worse, a poorly designed and easily overloaded scanner front end. :roll:

You can look and say see we are compliant and its not our equipment and neener neener neener. Since you guys are buying up all these "new" Moto portables and XTLs, let's see why it would be a good idea to get on board with commercial and government requirements.....hmmmmm do the words INDUSTRY STANDARD mean anything??

Industry standards only means something to the specified industry. Many ham systems are operated to the same standards of commercial systems. Hams are held to the same high non-interference standards that everybody else is.

Pretty much everything commercially(the big three Moto, EF Johnson, Harris) made in the 2m and UHF 400 MHz range that is going to be sold in the future will be narrowband only, so you might as well get used to it. It's going to come down the pipe sooner or later.

And that has been my point all along. At some point, the equipment will become readily available for reasonable proces. Then, and only then, will you start to see widespread deployment of narrow band FM radios on the ham bands.

I would suggest that, since you don't have a ham license to start with, perhaps your participation in a thread that is specifically ham radio related is inappropriate. You don't seem to have the foggiest idea about the issues facing ham radio, and clearly you don't care.

 

[zz0468]

Actually your assumption is incorrect. I used a scanner and a spec an to narrow down who it was and where it was coming from. Who I work for and what exactly I do is really none of your concern, so we will leave it at that.

I wasn't assuming. I drew my information from your own post. You stated that a ham was causing intermod to your scanner. Did you take steps to insure that the spectrum analyzer itself wasn't overloaded as well?

As to who you work for, and what you do, if it's not our concern, then leave it out of the thread. You are the one who mentioned a VHF P25 repeater.

 

[reedeb]

Actually your assumption is incorrect. I used a scanner and a spec an to narrow down who it was and where it was coming from. Who I work for and what exactly I do is really none of your concern, so we will leave it at that.

He's from the goverment, and he's here to help. snicker, snicker.

 

[IDCowboy1]

Well, chances are quite good that ther's nothing wrong with the transmitter, and it's your scanner that's easily overloaded. I'd even bet you have a preamp on it.

And assumptions like these are quite inappropriate as well. However, I do appreciate the fact that you did some research on me....LOL
Yes I do admit freely that my scanner did pick up intermod from my aforementioned HAM neighbor. However what I DID NOT publish and will not ever publish is where else the same intermod from the same source has been found, and if you think its a VHF P25 repeater then that works for me just fine.

 

[zz0468]

...
Yes I do admit freely that my scanner did pick up intermod from my aforementioned HAM neighbor.

So, why are you even bothering with this thread? Narrow banding won't solve your problem, you're not a ham with a vested interest in the subject, and you haven't added anything to the discussion other than bash the hams who do have an interest. What is your point?

However what I DID NOT publish and will not ever publish is where else the same intermod from the same source has been found, and if you think its a VHF P25 repeater then that works for me just fine.

Uh... yeah, sure. Northern Nevada... won't publish where the intermod has been heard... blah blah. Yeah, we get the implication. And we're expected to believe that. :roll:

 

[IDCowboy1]

So, why are you even bothering with this thread? Narrow banding won't solve your problem, you're not a ham with a vested interest in the subject, and you haven't added anything to the discussion other than bash the hams who do have an interest. What is your point?

Uh... yeah, sure. Northern Nevada... won't publish where the intermod has been heard... blah blah. Yeah, we get the implication. And we're expected to believe that. :roll:

My point is that what you HAMS do affects other people. Not just your merry little band. I happen to think narrow banding is a good idea. You obviously are a HAM who has a sore spot about those who believe that the rules regarding radio systems should apply to all, not just a select few. Fine. That's your OPINION and you are entitled to it. I happen to think narrow banding will require people to be a little more responsible with their equipment and being responsible is sound practice. When you have to deal with the effects of intermod and interference and what those impacts are, you tend to try to not ding your neighbor. As far as HAM bashing goes, the only thing I have "bashed" on is irresponsibility and ignorance by SOME operators where equipment is concerned. It's painfully obvious that it exists just by seeing some of the posts and replies on this forum. I won't lump you in with the "435'ers" cause that would be just plain wrong. I also happen to think that licensing of HAMs is very weak at best and there should be more knowledge required of operators. I think the "self regulation" of which you have spoken about earlier is purely non-existent and the fact that the FCC lets the "435'ers" get away with their shenanigans is proof that you folks don't get shafted one stinking bit. I'd say you folks have it pretty darn good. So with that I would say that IF you do get stuck with narrow banding I would be counting my lucky stars and be mighty happy that's all you get stuck with.


Quick geography lesson before I go. If you look closely you will notice that place is in SOUTHERN Nevada not northern Nevada.