RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel

[wa1...@gmail.com]

Please look at the ARRL band plan for 900 MHz. It is approved and very well
thought out. After looking at this, your thoughts on simplex frequencies
may be very different.

http://www.arrl.org/band-plan

http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/33_cm_Band_Plan-Draft.pdf

At the last NESMC meeting I suggested that NESMC adapt the very well thought
out ARRL 900 MHz band plan. It was unceremoniously squashed by the person
leading the meeting.

Roger
WA1NVC

"Richard J. Cabral, W1RJC" <goo...@rjcabral.com> Feb 22 07:28PM -0800

I agree with N1OTY and N1ZZN about using 927.4000 is our
unofficial-official P25 simplex frequency. When I was at 900 night in
Plymouth this past January, I looked at the NESMC bandplan and suggested
that night that we decide on a separate frequency. I mentioned to N1OTY
and KC1HO that 927.4000 looked like a good suggestion, but no one came to a
consensus then. In any case, I am going to program in '4000 on my HT for
P25. I'd like to try this up at NEAR-Fest as well and hope others decide
to join me on that frequency! :)

I program my radios and the ones I do for others with a monitor key as
well. I think it's a good idea before using either '4000 or '5000 to put
the rig into monitor first just to be safe before making a call (just a
good amateur practice). I hear what others are saying about using P25 on
'5000 still as a calling frequency and then moving off. I also note how
having two frequencies further separates the 900 community, however I think
putting both modes on two different frequencies just makes better sense.
If you wish to monitor both for activity, you could always do a custom scan
group that scans the two frequencies. That is just my opinion and
preference, however.

[n1...@comcast.net]

Roger,

I am interested in your input as I will definitely be discussing this issue at the next NESMC meeting and I will undoubtedly be proposing changes to the NESMC 902 band plan. I have noted the variations between the two documents that you reference in your email, specifically the minor disparity in the location of the calling frequency (927.1 versus 927.5). The adopted plan went with 927.5, so I presume that would be your recommendation as well.

John

N1OTY

---

From: wa1...@gmail.com
To: near...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:42:42 PM
Subject: [Near-900] RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel

Please look at the ARRL band plan for 900 MHz.  It is approved and very well
thought out.  After looking at this, your thoughts on simplex frequencies
may be very different.

http://www.arrl.org/band-plan

http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/33_cm_Band_Plan-Draft.pdf

At the last NESMC meeting I suggested that NESMC adapt the very well thought
out ARRL 900 MHz band plan.  It was unceremoniously squashed by the person
leading the meeting.

Roger
WA1NVC

--
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
near-900-u...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Near-900" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to near-900+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Lee M. Lemoine]

Likewise; it's indicated as the CALLING frequency.  Proposing a frequency or three of 'simplex' makes sense to me.. 

Only issue i see with 927.1 is that the repeater splits start directly above and below -- which only leaves the simplex frequency.  

I was sitting in front of Roger and seconded his motion; however, it definitely didn't move...

Sincerely,
Lee M. Lemoine
N3LEE - Amateur Radio / WQGP447 - GMRS
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

[n1...@comcast.net]

I agree that 927.1 makes less sense than 927.5. I can support 927.5 as a calling frequency with people moving down to 927.4 and lower.

I believe that the major reason Roger's motion went nowhere was two-fold:

1.  Many folks were not fully informed of the changes made to the ARRL band plan, so could not make any determination at that time as to whether there was an actual need to change our plan.

2.  Nobody, myself included, foresaw this particular issue coming up. Some 900 P25 radio's existed at the time, notably some Moto XTS2500's, but were so cost prohibitive that I know of very few people actually owning them. The influx of so many inexpensive EFJ radio's and the ability to easily hack the options file to enable P25 has been a game changer, just like the MSF's were a game changer.

Frankly, I am a bit perplexed that we even have to contemplate what we have before us. I still believe that the most elegant and simple solution is a gentleman's agreement where everyone simply enables PL on analog if they don't want to hear the digital bursts. Unfortunately, three decades of public safety work has taught me that rarely do people do things the easy way. The really sad part for the analog guys that are crying the loudest is that, under Roger's plan (and what I am now backing), they will still hear P25 bursts if they continue to insist on running CSQ.

Somehow, this all smacks of taking a 20 pound sledge hammer and using it for a task that is better suited to a ball peen hammer!!

John

N1OTY

---

From: "Lee M. Lemoine" <llem...@gmail.com>
To: near...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:27:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Near-900] RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel

[Lee M. Lemoine]

John:  Agreeing on the Analog PL ahead of time will allow the P25 users to input that PL into their rigs; allowing for harmony as requested by others.    This should make a good meeting ground for all...

Sincerely,
Lee M. Lemoine
N3LEE - Amateur Radio / WQGP447 - GMRS
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

[Dave Newman]

We probably need at least five agreed simplex channels on 33cm band for various uses as it is getting congested at flea markets and events.

 

Who would have believed that 33cm NBFM would even take off before we got those deals on the MSF repeaters from NY-NJ Utility.  And now we are even seeing Quantars coming up cheaper in surplus for mixed mode with P25, woo hoo!  Love it!

 

So just like we have done on 2m band with 146.52, 535, 55 and 58 and perhaps more in different regions, we can work it out on 33cm.

 

I’m not in favor or making one frequency “calling only” but “national simplex channel” is fine – keeps the old rigs working and people in the hobby until all the 500 channel mixed mode stuff gets going.

 

Looks like a GREAT topic for this coming Thursday 900 Dinner at Plane Jane’s at Plymouth, MA airport – 6pm…

 

73

Dave Newman

WB1EVP

[Roger Kolakowski]

Just to be fair to the Left Coast...this is what the 900 MHz Radio Aficionados from there have done...included in this instructive article are their simplex recommendations.

http://www.repeater-builder.com/tech-info/900mhz-frequencies-to-avoid.html

r2
WA1KAT

[Lee M. Lemoine]

I tastefully disagree...

Calling frequencies have existed for a long time; but they're now in the SOP for any national interoperability response plan...   This is precisely why all of the nation-wide Low, High, UHF, and 7/800 mhz "TAC" channels have a calling frequency.   As amateurs, we may need to adapt our practices to meet the standardized acceptance of the commercial (and public safety) world in which we are supposed to be aiding!

Case and point -- Boxborough; it'd be nice to use the calling freq for calling -- and switch off to simplex channels as desired... but; a simple call to another station with a finite number of 'overs' doesn't need assignment to a tac channel.   IE:   Asking someone their location or coordinating a meeting at a common point. 

Likewise, the GEMOTO group could advertise .400 as a "Analog TAC" and .4125 as "p25" .4250 as DMR, .4375 as analog TAC 2, .450 as DMR TAC 2... and so on...   with .500 being analog calling.


Just saying; there are defined standards in the organizations which we support in communications emergencies that have these standards in effect; may be worth looking into their adoption to begin to meld our (amateur) thinking to (public safety).

 Sincerely,

Lee M. Lemoine
N3LEE - Amateur Radio / WQGP447 - GMRS
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

[Lee M. Lemoine]

Agreed.

FWIW:  There is a new breed of ultrawideband ethernet bridge that is capable of point to multipoint;  I'm looking specifically into locking out the repeater input portion of the amateur band...  this is tough to do; because by default, the noise floor is VERY low there and it wants to utilize those freqs!

Sincerely,
Lee M. Lemoine
N3LEE - Amateur Radio / WQGP447 - GMRS
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

[ri...@rickzach.com]

Been watching this thread for days now.

Dumb question...

Other than at fleas, as anyone in the entire history of ham radio ever used 900 for any sort of simplex communications.  Ever ??!!

Gotta go do something more important... like wash my socks!

__________________________________

Rick Zach via DROID. K1RJZ

603-703-4740

[Jeff Lehmann N1ZZN]

No, I don't think it's worth this much discussion.

I'll be using 927.4 for P25 and 927.5 (100.0 Hz PL) for analog simplex.

No need to change any official band plans anywhere, this is just a simplex freq for hamfests guys!

73

Jeff  N1ZZN

[Lee M. Lemoine]

Agreed....

I'll look into hooking up some quintron amps to my 15mhz wide carrier ethernet adapters...     1/2 kw of internet access! 

Sincerely,
Lee M. Lemoine
N3LEE - Amateur Radio / WQGP447 - GMRS
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

[Nels Anderson]

Very good question. I do have one answer...

When K1NR and I are out driving our antique cars we frequently us our
900 MHz HT's for intercoms between cars. The nice strong audio works
well in an open car. I doubt we bother anyone else since we're in motion...

73 Nels K1UR

On 2/24/2013 2:40 PM, ri...@rickzach.com wrote:
> Been watching this thread for days now.
>
> Dumb question...
>
> Other than at fleas, as anyone in the entire history of ham radio ever
> used 900 for any sort of simplex communications. Ever ??!!
>
> Gotta go do something more important... like wash my socks!
>

> /__________________________________/
> /Rick Zach via DROID. K1RJZ/
> /603-703-4740/
> /
> /

> <mailto:near-900-u...@googlegroups.com>

> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Near-900" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to near-900+u...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:near-900%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

> <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.

[n1...@comcast.net]

I don't envision us ever using this scheme since many of their simplex frequencies are repeater outputs here.

John

N1OTY

---

From: "Roger Kolakowski" <Roge...@aol.com>
To: near...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:11:16 PM

Subject: Re: [Near-900] RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel

[Glenn Shiffer]

It's like asking 1500 people what they want for lunch, and you wind up with hot dogs and beans. --- On Sun, 2/24/13, ri...@rickzach.com <ri...@rickzach.com> wrote:

From: ri...@rickzach.com <ri...@rickzach.com> Subject: Re: [Near-900] RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel

[Lee M. Lemoine]

That's more like the previous general election...   oh wait; that's another phallic expression...

Sincerely,
Lee M. Lemoine
N3LEE - Amateur Radio / WQGP447 - GMRS
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

[John Miller]

I've done it a couple times while meeting a friend and we got out of range of the repeater we started out on but in range of where we could talk simplex so yes, I've done it.73

John N1UMJ

----- Original Message -----

From: ri...@rickzach.com

To: near...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:40 PM

Subject: Re: [Near-900] RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel

[wa1...@gmail.com]

John,

The proposed plan(PDF) and the adopted plan(web) agree on 927.1000 as
"Simplex"!

The PDF has "Frequency Range" 927.1000 as "Simplex calling" and the web has
"Frequency Range" 927.0750 - 927.1250 as "Simplex". Having the Simplex
channels centered around 927.1000 maximizes the channels available for
repeaters while giving a guard band around the 902.1000 weak signal
frequency. This plan was very well thought out; the ARRL deserves a
compliment for getting it right.

If you look closely at the PDF or web page you will see that:

- "Frequency Range 927.0000 - 927.0875" says "Repeater outputs 927.0125 -
927.0750"
- "Frequency Range 927.1125 - 928.0000" says "Repeater outputs 927.1250 -
927.9875"

- This means 927.0875, 927.1000, and 927.1125 are channels in the "Frequency
Range" they call "Simplex".

There are a few of caveats here:

1) Everyone is not going to switch immediately from 927.500 to 927.100 as
the "simplex channel". I suspect 927.5000 will remain a simplex channel for
a long time to come in many parts of the country. The Repeater pair
927.500/902.500 at least in this area is not going to be assigned any time
soon.

2) In this area the 927.075 and the 927.1125 pairs will be the last ones
assigned if ever to provide additional weak signal protection.

I'm considering putting 927.100 Simplex in my portables just to see how many
people are there when I go to Dayton.

FYI, I discussed the ARRL adopted 900 MHz band plan with the 900 MHz NESMC
coordinator before the last NESMC meeting in Boxboro.

Roger
WA1NVC

P.S. I have two broadband garbage generators at my 900 MHz repeater site
and I expect many more sites to have this problem in the near future.

From: n1...@comcast.net
Date: Feb 24 11:30AM
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/near-900/msg/68284e4a90b10b34

Roger,


I am interested in your input as I will definitely be discussing this issue
at the next NESMC meeting and I will undoubtedly be proposing changes to the
NESMC 902 band plan. I have noted the variations between the two documents
that you reference in your email, specifically the minor disparity in the
location of the calling frequency (927.1 versus 927.5). The adopted plan
went with 927.5, so I presume that would be your recommendation as well.


John
N1OTY

[n1...@comcast.net]

My reference to 927.5000 as the "calling" frequency was due to "note 5" of the ARRL plan as adopted. However, I keenly note that they also reference regional choice. After reading your latest email, I am intrigued by what you suggest and how you have presented it. It makes a lot of sense to me.

In the end, I'd like to see one common calling frequency available to all. It doesn't matter to me whether it is 927.1000 or 927.5000, as long as we pick one. There are many voice modes available now and in the future. We need to make provisions to accommodate ALL potential simplex voice users. The choice of a calling channel, though apparently simple on the surface, is actually complicated by outside interests. If 927.5000 is more-or-less the defacto national standard, people visiting from other parts of the country may not have their simplex frequency or frequencies provisioned correctly in their radio, if we adopt a non-standard calling frequency.

I am aware of a couple of 900 P25 users who are already provisioning their radios on 927.4000 as the adopted simplex home for P25. Maybe we should consider making 927.1000 the NESMC area calling frequency (all voice modes), 927.4000 could be the designated DV simplex frequency and the current analog users can stay at 927.5000. Since some analog users will not even consider using PL on .5000 as a way of accommodating all current users, maybe we are better off not asking them to move at all. Let .5000 stay as it is.

BTW, I have only been directly contacted by one individual in this matter. The basic argument given for wanting to exclude the P25 users boiled down to the analog users being present on 927.5000 first (face meet palm). I still think this is all overkill and more appropriately solved by PL for analog receivers rather than splitting things up, but what do I know.

I'll be going to the South Shore 900 Night in Plymouth on Thursday night. At least one, and maybe both, EMA NESMC directors should be there. I'll discuss your information in depth with them. If I have their support, I plan to take this up at the next NESMC officers meeting. If you have a preference for a calling frequency, 927.1000 or 927.5000, feel free to amplify your response. I presume from your email that you favor 927.1000.

John

N1OTY

---

From: wa1...@gmail.com
To: "John(N1OTY) Frye" <n1...@comcast.net>
Cc: "Near-900" <near...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:12:40 AM
Subject: RE: 900 MHz Simplex channel