RAYNET Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Emergency Planning Team > Emergency Planning in RAYNET
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - RAYLINK-90 Article on Yorkshire TDF involvement
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

RAYLINK-90 Article on Yorkshire TDF involvement

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
g7gmn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05/August/2008
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote g7gmn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: RAYLINK-90 Article on Yorkshire TDF involvement
    Posted: 05/February/2015 at 05:16
Having just read the very interesting article by Brian G0RHI in RAYLINK 90, I noted that near the end he mentions that it appears that the RSGB have decreed that 146 to 147 MHz can ONLY be used for DIGITAL protocols.

Maybe I am dreaming here, but I seem to remember that it was OFCOM that has granted temporary access to this band of frequencies.... NOT THE RSGB.  They may have facilitated the distribution of NOVs for 146 to 147 MHz use, but surely that does not mean that they can dictate their absolute use.

Surely the OCCASIONAL use of a few frequencies within the 146 to 147 MHz band for uses such as those that were required in Yorkshire or similar situations, cannot cause any great problems that the RSGB should worry about.

Ian.
Ian, G7GMN.
Controller, NE Hampshire RAYNET.

If in-doubt, print it out !
Back to Top
g7gmn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05/August/2008
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote g7gmn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05/February/2015 at 05:21
I have just also noticed that I cannot edit my post above.  I should be able to edit it within 15 mins as far as I remember......
Has that facility been removed ?

Ian.
Ian, G7GMN.
Controller, NE Hampshire RAYNET.

If in-doubt, print it out !
Back to Top
G1HUL View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/January/2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote G1HUL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05/February/2015 at 07:39
Originally posted by g7gmn g7gmn wrote:

I seem to remember that it was OFCOM that has granted temporary access to this band of frequencies.... NOT THE RSGB

Correct, and Ofcom do not specify any mode in any band, that's either the IARU or country organisations (some countries do legislate, UK doesn't). 146 is not on the IARU region 1 plan, so use is entirely a domestic affair and use is the RSGB's recommendation.

It's not a mandatory ban plan, so there is nothing stopping you doing it, but it might upset non-RAYNET people.
Jim, G1HUL
-----------------------
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
Back to Top
g6rib View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 07/January/2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote g6rib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05/February/2015 at 09:22
The RSGB proposal to Ofcom for the use of 146MHz was based on digital use and not as an extension of the 2m band.  The RSGB is, in effect, managing this spectrum on behalf of Ofcom:  the RSGB is issuing the NoVs.  

Working within the band plans is an important part of maintaining RAYNET’s high operating standards.  To do otherwise would harm RAYNET’s reputation and raise the risk of deliberate interference.  Should that happen on 146MHz the response would be that it was our fault for breaking the band plan.

At my request Cathy raised the subject of using temporary analogue repeater outputs on 146MHz at the RSGB Spectrum Forum meeting last autumn.  The response was an emphatic “NO”.  

Subsequently I have made two approaches to the RSGB board, including preparing a lengthy document for its December meeting.  Both have been rebuffed.

Ofcom’s position has been that we should be able to do what we are trying to achieve within Amateur Radio spectrum:  it was at Ofcom’s request that I went to the RSGB board.  Ofcom has, reluctantly, accepted our need to have repeater outputs in PBR spectrum and we are about to apply for licences, albeit at considerable financial cost.

From my perspective, it’s wasted a lot of time and effort.  The lack of RSGB support for a flagship enhancement of RAYNET’s capabilities is a disappointment.

Andy Evans
Zone 2 - Yorkshire and Humberside
Back to Top
Cathy Clark View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 11/January/2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cathy Clark Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05/February/2015 at 13:45
Ian

This option was removed some years ago, following abuse of the system by certain individuals
Cathy Clark G1GQJ

RAYNET-UK Chairman
Back to Top
g7gmn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05/August/2008
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote g7gmn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/February/2015 at 02:57
Hello Cathy, Jim and Andy.

I used the "edit" facility a few months ago on one of my few postings I make, that is why I queried it above.

On the subject of repeater outputs on normal high-band PMR frequencies, does this mean that "RAYNET" will pay for a UK national allocation in high-band ?

This will be much more expensive than if we were to have a UK national allocation in low-band, as it could be paired with a normal 70 MHz amateur frequency for possibly very wide area talk-through and be easily programmed in existing radios.  They are half the price of the "popular" high-band frequency allocations.
Virtually any radios that we use in RAYNET for 70 MHz are ex-PMR 12.5 KHz anyway, so would almost certainly conform to present-day standards.

Quarter-wave aerials are not too bad at 1 metre, half-wave dipoles for base-stations obviously twice as big as the average high-band aerial though.  Quite a weight though to hang about 1 metre off the side of a temporary mast....

Just a thought....

Ian. D.
Ian, G7GMN.
Controller, NE Hampshire RAYNET.

If in-doubt, print it out !
Back to Top
g7gmn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05/August/2008
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote g7gmn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/February/2015 at 03:23
Hello All,

In my thoughts above, it assumes that any group that may use this kind of facility would have to use low-band radios.  Has a "low-band" option been considered already and I am thinking over old ground ?
Very easy to then cross-band to any other band with Simoco SRM9000 radios, one easily homemade RJ45 to RJ45 linking cable.  Other easy options exist.

Just another thought....

Ian. D.
Ian, G7GMN.
Controller, NE Hampshire RAYNET.

If in-doubt, print it out !
Back to Top
g7gmn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05/August/2008
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote g7gmn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/February/2015 at 03:34
There is of-course a simple answer to the "digital modes only" approach.....  Use DStar ( if enough people have it...  only two members of our group do ) or DMR.

Brain a bit cloudy now, so I will stop and get some sleep.

Ian. D.
Ian, G7GMN.
Controller, NE Hampshire RAYNET.

If in-doubt, print it out !
Back to Top
M0XZL View Drop Down
New Member
New Member


Joined: 08/March/2014
Location: Bedford
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote M0XZL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/February/2015 at 07:37
Certainly worth a thought Ian. I suspect that a low band approach might be more practical for groups than individuals. There is certainly a reasonable amount of lowish prices low band PMR gear available. Therefore, if the event is focused enough to be covered by a groups resources then it could be very effective. More of a challenge if you are needing help from other groups/individuals who are less likely to be appropriately equipped.

The Tour covered a lot of area and involved a lot of people. Sticking with options around 2m and 70cm means that it is much more likely that conventional ham rigs can be used by everyone. People are often more resilient if they are familiar with their own rigs. I suspect HT use was also a consideration for this event.

It's a shame that we can't get a 'fully contained' option now. Hopefully using the proposed arrangement born from the Tour will help to validate the need and value, and something more appropriate can be arranged in the future.
John, M0XZL
Back to Top
G1HUL View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/January/2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote G1HUL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/February/2015 at 08:16
An off-the-wall thought here...

Have any Groups played with cross-band between 4m and 2m?

Solves the limited range on 70cm, but would (in most cases) require the operator to have two radios.
Jim, G1HUL
-----------------------
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down