ka2ugq@ky2d-2.UUCP (Tom) (11/29/85)
> I would like to > throw up the topic of the excessive use of transmitter power > by many NY/NJ/CT area packeteers. It seems I am getting a > lot of feedback from my simplex friends about packets messing > up 145.000 and how we are supposed to be the super techs so why > are we messing up so badly etc. etc.? My own personal opinion > is that as usual, the few are causing problems for the many. Are you > running 160W to access the local mailbox or your friend down > the block? If so, wise up! Are you running the proper audio > level into your TNC? You don't know? Get it checked! I agree with you as far as packet users running more power than is needed to accomplish satisfactory communication. However, the fact that nearby packet stations are interfering with simplex users of frequencies near designated packet frequencies is different. As is the case with almost any new and powerful mode of communication that comes into being in Amateur Radio, packet has been assigned simplex frequencies that were previously used by amateurs for a club frequency or just simple chatting. A while ago, our club (the New Providence Amateur Radio Club) had our base frequency on 145.800 MHz. As you may know, that frequency is now in use by the Oscar-10 and related satellites. We were forced to move just as the simplex users of the packet designated frequencies will have to move sooner or later. > I am very impressed by the level of the commentary on this > system. Please let's hear your views. Happy Thanksgiving! > de Bob K2SK >> Happy Thanksgiving to all (gobble-gobble)! -Tom Brown KA2UGQ
ai2q@ky2d-2.UUCP (Alex) (11/30/85)
> > I would like to > > throw up the topic of the excessive use of transmitter power > > by many NY/NJ/CT area packeteers. It seems I am getting a > > lot of feedback from my simplex friends about packets messing > > up 145.000 and how we are supposed to be the super techs so why > > are we messing up so badly etc. etc.? My own personal opinion > > is that as usual, the few are causing problems for the many. Are you > > running 160W to access the local mailbox or your friend down > > the block? If so, wise up! Are you running the proper audio > > level into your TNC? You don't know? Get it checked! > > I agree with you as far as packet users running more power than is > needed to accomplish satisfactory communication. However, the fact > that nearby packet stations are interfering with simplex users of > frequencies near designated packet frequencies is different. As is > the case with almost any new and powerful mode of communication that > comes into being in Amateur Radio, packet has been assigned simplex > frequencies that were previously used by amateurs for a club > frequency or just simple chatting. > > A while ago, our club (the New Providence Amateur Radio Club) had our > base frequency on 145.800 MHz. As you may know, that frequency is now > in use by the Oscar-10 and related satellites. We were forced to move > just as the simplex users of the packet designated frequencies will > have to move sooner or later. > > > I am very impressed by the level of the commentary on this > > system. Please let's hear your views. Happy Thanksgiving! > > de Bob K2SK >> > > Happy Thanksgiving to all (gobble-gobble)! > -Tom Brown KA2UGQ *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** One of the problems all packeteers are going to encounter is the lack of publicity that has surrounded the coordinated packet channels. many of the simplex phone ops I've spoken with have stated "I've never seen anything in writing." Why not send a message to your SM or the League alerting them aboutthis problem so we see more references to 145.01 through 145.09 in our pub- lications? 73, Alex, AI2Q
KPETERSEN@SIMTEL20.ARPA (12/03/85)
From: Alex <ai2q%ky2d-2.uucp@BRL.ARPA> > > I would like to > > throw up the topic of the excessive use of transmitter power > > by many NY/NJ/CT area packeteers. It seems I am getting a > > lot of feedback from my simplex friends about packets messing > > up 145.000 and how we are supposed to be the super techs so why > > are we messing up so badly etc. etc.? My own personal opinion > > is that as usual, the few are causing problems for the many. Are you > > running 160W to access the local mailbox or your friend down > > the block? If so, wise up! Are you running the proper audio > > level into your TNC? You don't know? Get it checked! > > I agree with you as far as packet users running more power than is > needed to accomplish satisfactory communication. However, the fact > that nearby packet stations are interfering with simplex users of > frequencies near designated packet frequencies is different. As is > the case with almost any new and powerful mode of communication that > comes into being in Amateur Radio, packet has been assigned simplex > frequencies that were previously used by amateurs for a club > frequency or just simple chatting. > > A while ago, our club (the New Providence Amateur Radio Club) had our > base frequency on 145.800 MHz. As you may know, that frequency is now > in use by the Oscar-10 and related satellites. We were forced to move > just as the simplex users of the packet designated frequencies will > have to move sooner or later. > > > I am very impressed by the level of the commentary on this > > system. Please let's hear your views. > > de Bob K2SK >> > > -Tom Brown KA2UGQ One of the problems all packeteers are going to encounter is the lack of publicity that has surrounded the coordinated packet channels. many of the simplex phone ops I've spoken with have stated "I've never seen anything in writing." Why not send a message to your SM or the League alerting them about this problem so we see more references to 145.01 through 145.09 in our publications? 73, Alex, AI2Q