Raynet frequencies in the new 2m band plan
John Morris
Emergency Communications Priority frequencies on 144 MHz
========================================================
Since publication of the results of the IARU Region 1 Conference in
Tel Aviv (Rad Com, December 1996, page 17) the VHF Committee has
received many enquiries about the effect on the Emergency
Communications Priority frequencies. Currently these are 144.775,
144.800 and 144.825 MHz. 144.850 MHz may also be used with restricted
power.
As of 1 July 1997, the sub-band 144.800 to 144.990 MHz will be
allocated to digital modes. This will obviously affect all but the
first of frequencies listed above. (The three other Emergency
Communications Priority frequencies in the band - 144.260, 145.200 and
145.225 MHz - will not be affected.)
In this note I will try to answer as many of the questions as I can at
this point. I'll be using the term ``Raynet'' generically to cover all
groups who use these frequencies - no particular group or organisation
is implied.
Q. Why was there no consultation on the new band plan?
A. There was. The low half of the band has been under review for
some time, and opinions were solicited in Rad Com (April 1994,
page 8). The results were published in Rad Com (December 1994,
page 6). Information was also put on the Internet and Packet.
The desired band plan had a smaller `` narrow band'' segment, a
200 kHz ``Data Communication'' segment just above 144.500 MHz,
and a wider ``all modes'' section than the old plan. The VHF
Committee has been working towards bringing this plan into
reality ever since.
The decision time was at the Tel Aviv Conference. If you compare
what was decided there with what we were asking for, it looks
good. The only point where the result is less than perfect is
that the digital communications section has been put near the top
of the Meg. That was a necessary compromise to obtain the
important features: a properly defined digital section and a more
appropriate narrow-band section.
Q. Wasn't Raynet considered at the Conference?
A. By the RSGB delegation, yes. By the other countries, no. Raynet
(et al) is unique to the UK, and we are the only country to make
special provision for it in our band plan. We have to fit our
national requirements into the international framework.
The inevitable disruption to existing users of 144.800 to 144.850
MHz had to be weighed against the high probability of a stalemate
arising if no compromise could be reached. That would have left
us with the old band plan, which is well out of date when
compared with current amateur activity.
Q. Is there any intention to find replacement frequencies for those
affected?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. What will they be?
A. The vital question! That's being worked on right now. As the
digital modes are moving out of 144.500 - 144.700 MHz, one
obvious possibility is to ask Raynet groups to move down to
somewhere in that part of the band. But there's a logistical
problem with that: the digital move is due to take up to six
months, starting from 1 July 1997, and the groups need somewhere
to operate during that time.
Q. Can't we just stay where we are and ignore the new plan?
A. That just won't work, as operators in neighbouring countries will
be going digital on those frequencies soon. Any group operating
within radio range of another country will begin to experience
severe interference.
Q. Couldn't Raynet go to 12.5 kHz channels, and so save some space?
Would that help?
A. It would help, but it is really up to the groups concerned.
Changing frequency is easier than changing modulation method, and
some groups have a considerable investment in equipment.
Ultimately the VHF Committee would like to see all FM voice
operation on two metres going to 12.5 kHz, but the timetable for
that runs over several years, up to 2000. Raynet needs a solution
now. It is not reasonable to expect Raynet groups to change
channel specification much more quickly than everyone else.
Q. So where should Raynet groups operate now?
A. Nothing changes until 1 July 1997. For the moment, carry on as
you are. The VHF Committee is aware of the urgency of the
situation, and the necessity for groups to be able to plan ahead
any frequency changes, so will make a recommendation as soon as
possible.
Q. What should we be doing in preparation?
A. If you are currently using 144.800, 144.825 or 144.850 MHz then
it is inevitable that you will need to QSY during the latter half
of 1997. Operation on those frequencies will become impracticable
as the digital modes start to move in. So now is the time to
start planning. Take stock of your equipment, and decide what you
will have to do once the replacement frequencies are agreed.
Q. Will there be consultation on the new frequencies?
A. Yes - and it starts right here. There is considerable urgency in
finding an answer so groups can get organised, but the VHF
Committee still wants as much input as possible in the short time
available. If you have ideas, please send them to me or any
member of the VHF Committee. (Packet or email preferred - see
below for addresses.)
Please discuss this within your local organisations. In particular, we
would like some feedback on the following questions.
1. Given the choice, would groups rather have a block of frequencies
all together - similar to the 144.775 to 144.850 block, but lower in
the band - or would you be prepared to accept several frequencies
scattered through the MHz? The reason for asking is that if a block
is preferred, then 144.775 MHz is also likely to go. By taking
scattered frequencies, 144.775 MHz can probably be retained.
2. The change to 12.5 kHz channel spacing above 145 MHz makes more
repeater channels available. Would it be useful for one of these to
be made Emergency Communications Priority? Would this be a suitable
replacement for one or more of the current simplex frequencies?
John Morris, GM4ANB (qthr)
Chairman, RSGB VHF Committee
Packet: GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU
email: jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk
--
John Morris Due to circumstances beyond my control,
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU - Ashleigh Brilliant
Garry
In article <850690...@kirsta.demon.co.uk>
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris) wrote:
[Loadsa snips, hopefully without changing sense]
> Emergency Communications Priority frequencies on 144 MHz
> ========================================================
> Q. Wasn't Raynet considered at the Conference?
>
> A. By the RSGB delegation, yes. By the other countries, no. Raynet
> (et al) is unique to the UK, and we are the only country to make
> special provision for it in our band plan.
> Q. Will there be consultation on the new frequencies?
>
> A. Yes - and it starts right here.
Perhaps someone could explain why Raynet require 7 (I think 7)
frequencies allocated within 2m ? It seems rather a lot.
Personally, I give way to emergency vehicles on the road; could we
not all do the same on 2m during emergencies and exercises ?
--
Garry
Pete Morgan-Lucas
Ray Woodward wrote:
> In a perfect world yes, but I wonder how many people operating during a
> RAENET exercise ever come across someone who either a - refuses to move,
> or b - reckons not to be able to hear the RAENET traffic on the channel
> ?
>
> As 144.825 is a local 'natter channel' around here I can assure you that
> the second of the two choices above happens quite often :-(
Given that 144-146MHz is these days a RF wasteland over the majority
of the UK, it seems reasonable to me that RAYNET operations, finding
their "designated" frequency already occupied, could move up or down
the band until they found some space.
Useful analogy: You need to dial 999. You find a block of payphones,
let's say, outside a station or library. One, which you happen to have
used before to make a 999 call, is occupied. The adjacent payphones are
empty.
Do you evict the user of your "preferred" payphone in order to make
your call, or use one of the unoccupied, but perfectly serviceable,
payphones adjacent to it?
[Of course if there is only *one* payphone, or there are several, but
only one is working, the reasonable person would terminate their call
with reasonable swiftness to allow an emergency ca;; to be made]
//PJML// G6WBJ
"A Smiling face, a Warm embrace, two Paws to hold me tenderly"
Jerry Pallister
In message <c2488...@goldhill.demon.co.uk>
Garry <ga...@goldhill.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Perhaps someone could explain why Raynet require 7 (I think 7)
> frequencies allocated within 2m ? It seems rather a lot.
> Personally, I give way to emergency vehicles on the road; could we
> not all do the same on 2m during emergencies and exercises ?
> --
> Garry
Hi Garry,
whilst 7 frequency allocations look rather a lot, you must also take
into account, Cross Boarder operation, where one County may have it's
outstations on 144.800 yet the Net Control County station may be on
144.825. This occurs more often than not on Exercises, rather than
Events, but it is used and it is vital for a suitable operation.
Then there is the Talk Through facility, and also Engineering
Frequencies all this soon takes up a lot of the 7 frequencies, and
that is for one Group, not to mention if two or more Group's are
operating on the same day.
All said and done, we must all remember that Amatuer Radio relies
very much upon Gentleman ( Lady ) behavour, and as such this is
usually the case.
Hope that helps you a little more with why the 7 frequency allocations .
--
=======================================================================
73 De Jerry AX 25 G1YXF @ GB7GLO e-mail g1...@zetnet.co.uk
=======================================================================
Ray Woodward
In article <c2488...@goldhill.demon.co.uk>, Garry
<ga...@goldhill.demon.co.uk> comments :
>Personally, I give way to emergency vehicles on the road; could we
>not all do the same on 2m during emergencies and exercises ?
In a perfect world yes, but I wonder how many people operating during a
RAENET exercise ever come across someone who either a - refuses to move,
or b - reckons not to be able to hear the RAENET traffic on the channel
?
As 144.825 is a local 'natter channel' around here I can assure you that
the second of the two choices above happens quite often :-(
==
Ray
E-mail : raym...@airtime.co.uk
WWW : http://www.webcom.com/raymondw/
Alan J Holmes
In article <c2488...@goldhill.demon.co.uk>,
Garry <ga...@goldhill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <850690...@kirsta.demon.co.uk>
> Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris) wrote:
>[Loadsa snips, hopefully without changing sense]
>> Emergency Communications Priority frequencies on 144 MHz
>> ========================================================
>> Q. Wasn't Raynet considered at the Conference?
>> A. By the RSGB delegation, yes. By the other countries, no. Raynet
>> (et al) is unique to the UK, and we are the only country to make
>> special provision for it in our band plan.
>Perhaps someone could explain why Raynet require 7 (I think 7)
>frequencies allocated within 2m ? It seems rather a lot.
I would ask, is there a need for Raynet these days? When all the
emergency services have radio links with a base and with each
other. Communications have vastly improved since the conception
of Raynet, which has been invaluable in the past, but today?
Alan G4CRW
John Rabson
In message <598tdj$9...@loki.brunel.ac.uk>
Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes) writes:
> I would ask, is there a need for Raynet these days? When all the
> emergency services have radio links with a base and with each
> other. Communications have vastly improved since the conception
> of Raynet, which has been invaluable in the past, but today?
The statutory services _do_ have good communications for normal
purposes, but for major incidents you need a lot more equipment and
people trained to use it. IIRC at Lockerbie Raynet contributed 7000
manhours in 10 days.
Richard Lamont
In article <850690...@kirsta.demon.co.uk>,
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris) writes:
> Emergency Communications Priority frequencies on 144 MHz
I wouldn't mind these so much if they were 'emergency priority'
frequencies. In practice, they are private Raynet group natter channels.
Raynet groups have no more right to a private natter channel than
anyone else.
It also seems to me that as the cellphone and Home Office
emergency systems get steadily more universal, reliable and
resilient, the probability of Raynet playing a significant
role in a genuine emergency must steadily fall. (Marathons
and the like don't count - they're not emergencies at all.)
Given these facts, and given John's comment that the UK is the
only country in Region 1 to bother with this sort of thing,
perhaps the frequencies that Raynet is losing to the data
section should *not* be replaced elsewhere in the band.
They should just use the ordinary FM voice channels.
As an absolute minimum, the bandplan should be reworded to make
it clear that "Emergency Communications Priority" relates to
emergencies *only*, and not the activites of particular groups.
Perhaps a footnote saying something like:
The phrase "Emergency Communications Priority" relates to genuine
emergencies only. Non-emergency communications (including emergency
exercises) have no priority on any frequency. These frequencies
are not "Raynet channels" and should not be described as such.
--
Richard Lamont
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk
http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/
Mike Willis
10 years ago.
Mike Willis
Walt Davidson wrote:
>
> Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes) wrote:
>
> >I would ask, is there a need for Raynet these days?
>
> nowadays is that it can be used as a means of persuading a gullible
> public and often-hostile local councils that amateur radio is an
> esoteric pursuit which is somehow of inestimable value to the community
> in general!
Yes. It is beyond its time but the planners have not realised this yet
so there is some use there.
>
> Of course, Raynet offers a secondary benefit in that that it affords
> uniform-fetishists a legal opportunity to dress up in luminous yellow
> waistcoats and to stand officiously (usually in pouring rain) at
> junctions of country roads during charity Fun-Runs, brandishing
> handie-talkies.
>
Again true. But you don't need legal authority to wear a yellow anorak
or stand in the pouring rain. The fun runs, anorakism, sandals etc. are
exactly why I am not involved with Raynet.
Walt Davidson
Mike Willis <m...@rcru.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>But you don't need legal authority to wear a yellow anorak
>or stand in the pouring rain.
Not *yet*!
:-)
Merry Christmas de G3NYY
--
Walt Davidson E-mail: wa...@dial.pipex.com
wa...@enterprise.net
Jerry Pallister
In message <32b84651...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>
wa...@dial.pipex.com (Walt Davidson) writes:
> Of course, Raynet offers a secondary benefit in that that it affords
> uniform-fetishists a legal opportunity to dress up in luminous yellow
> waistcoats and to stand officiously (usually in pouring rain) at
> junctions of country roads during charity Fun-Runs, brandishing
> handie-talkies.
> :-)
> 73 de G3NYY
> --
> Walt Davidson E-mail: wa...@dial.pipex.com
> wa...@enterprise.net
>
It seems strange to me that the Fire Service, Ambulance Service and
the Police Comms Officer phone our RAYNET Group in Gloucestershire to
ask if we can help them AGAIN at the Fairford International Air Tattoo.
PS...Yellow / Reflective Jackets are a requirement when on the Air Base.
No doubt this item of logic will be met with the normal barrage of
comments, but it will not deter me from using my radio equipment to
help our under financed and over stretched " User Services ".
Perhaps there is a deal of advanced equipment on the market, but the
money is not around to purchase it. Should we as radio amateurs turn
our backs on these people.
James Dunnett
G4CRW asked:
> I would ask, is there a need for Raynet these days? When all the
> emergency services have radio links with a base and with each
> other. Communications have vastly improved since the conception
> of Raynet, which has been invaluable in the past, but today?
Not down here they haven't. Tory cuts in funding to local
government has set the development of our local authorities'
communications back years.
Here they NEED RayNet and are to make more use of mobile
phones. It's that bad!
73
-Jim |A thread's collective IQ declines in
jay...@cix.compulink.co.uk |proportion to the square of the
g4...@jimdee.prestel.co.uk |number of people who have joined it.
g4rga@gb7tjf.#45.gbr.eu | - Rob Pegoraro. (On UseNet)
James Dunnett
G3NYY writes:
> Of course, Raynet offers a secondary benefit in that that it affords
> uniform-fetishists a legal opportunity to dress up in luminous yellow
> waistcoats and to stand officiously (usually in pouring rain) at
> junctions of country roads during charity Fun-Runs, brandishing
> handie-talkies.
> :-)
Nice one Walt! Still haven't picked myself up off the floor.
Frank Erskine
In article <598jh0$4...@stonix.demon.co.uk>, Richard Lamont
<ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>It also seems to me that as the cellphone and Home Office
>emergency systems get steadily more universal, reliable and
>resilient, the probability of Raynet playing a significant
>role in a genuine emergency must steadily fall.
Cellphones still have a *long* way to go to become "universal".
Not all emergency services use Home Office maintained systems - in fact
they're probably a minority!
--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland
City of Sunderland Raynet
Michael Brown
>I would ask, is there a need for Raynet these days? When all the
>emergency services have radio links with a base and with each
>other. Communications have vastly improved since the conception
>of Raynet, which has been invaluable in the past, but today?
>
>
As a leader within St.John Ambulance as well as a radio amateur I would
say that St.J find great help and assistance from Raynet. It allows St.J
to deal with the things that they are good at and not have to about
setting up reliable comm's.
Regards.
--
Michael Brown M0APC
Alan J Holmes
In article <199612191...@zetnet.co.uk>,> wa...@dial.pipex.com (Walt Davidson) writes:
>> Of course, Raynet offers a secondary benefit in that that it affords
>> uniform-fetishists a legal opportunity to dress up in luminous yellow
>> waistcoats and to stand officiously (usually in pouring rain) at
>> junctions of country roads during charity Fun-Runs, brandishing
>> handie-talkies.
>> :-)
>It seems strange to me that the Fire Service, Ambulance Service and
>the Police Comms Officer phone our RAYNET Group in Gloucestershire to
>ask if we can help them AGAIN at the Fairford International Air Tattoo.
But that is not really an emergency, is it?
>PS...Yellow / Reflective Jackets are a requirement when on the Air Base.
But that's for pleasure.
>No doubt this item of logic will be met with the normal barrage of
>comments, but it will not deter me from using my radio equipment to
>help our under financed and over stretched " User Services ".
Provided it is for use with overstretched services in an
emergency situation.
>Perhaps there is a deal of advanced equipment on the market, but the
>money is not around to purchase it. Should we as radio amateurs turn
>our backs on these people.
Not in an emergency, but to have the amateur bands clogged with
messages for some fun event, not associated with AR seems to me
to be unneccssary.
Alan
Terry Elliott
In article <32b84651...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, Walt Davidson
<wa...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>
>nowadays is that it can be used as a means of persuading a gullible
>public and often-hostile local councils that amateur radio is an
>esoteric pursuit which is somehow of inestimable value to the community
>in general!
>
>planning permission for antenna masts, etc, in residential areas.
>
>Of course, Raynet offers a secondary benefit in that that it affords
>uniform-fetishists a legal opportunity to dress up in luminous yellow
>waistcoats and to stand officiously (usually in pouring rain) at
>junctions of country roads during charity Fun-Runs, brandishing
>handie-talkies.
And why not, Walt....!
--
Best 73
Cheers and beers .....
....Terry....G0EHX@GB7MSF and TE...@THELINDS.DEMON.CO.UK
City of Sunderland RAYNET Group
Robert N Young
On 20 Dec 1996 12:45:15 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
Holmes) wrote:
>Not in an emergency, but to have the amateur bands clogged with
>messages for some fun event, not associated with AR seems to me
>to be unneccssary.
It is good training for the possibility of helping out with comms in
an emergency!
I suggest you study your AR Licence as one of the reasons for issue is
'self training' *not* clogging up the bands with aimless chatter:-)
--
Bob.
Jerry Pallister
In message <199612201...@zetnet.co.uk>
Martin Briscoe <martin....@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> In message <199612191...@zetnet.co.uk>
> Jerry Pallister <g1...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > It seems strange to me that the Fire Service, Ambulance Service and
> > the Police Comms Officer phone our RAYNET Group in Gloucestershire to
> > ask if we can help them AGAIN at the Fairford International Air Tattoo.
> Why pay your own people overtime when someone else will do it for
> free or certainly a lot cheaper ?
> --
> ---- Martin Briscoe - Fort William - Inverness-shire ----
> -------------- martin....@zetnet.co.uk --------------
It has nothing to do with Overtime it has to do with providing a
complete communications system for probably one of the largest Shows
in the area. I recall the two Russian MIGs that crashed on the site
It is not possible to get onto site if the Baloon Goes up, we are
REQUESTED to be on site for 3 days .
You will be suprised how much equipment is needed to link back to the
Main User Services Hq's and I can assure you the Amateur Equipment is
far better than the User Services.
The bulk of the budget is used in protecting the 3 Royals who have
decided to reside in this County, and NO we don't get any assistance
for this protection from the Home Office.
Well, for what it's worth, we have already been asked to do our bit
for next Years Show, and given that the Event is for the RAF Funds,
is that a bad thing, taken into account we get NO money for our part ...
Roy Holt
In message <DUH9AkAo...@g3wte.demon.co.uk>
Frank Erskine <fr...@g3wte.demon.co.uk> writes:
The recent "fun run" back and forth across countless South
Pembrokeshire beaches for a period of six weeks proved quite
conclusively that the claims made for modern mobile phones bear
little relation to fact, and in no circumstances should this type of
equipment be regarded as in any way suitable in a real emergency in
anything like "fringe area" conditions.
As to the claims that the emergency services have better equipment
than us poor self financed amateurs - forget it!
During this large on going emergency situation so far as I am aware
we used only four amateur frequencies for *emergency* traffic, across
some fifteen working locations daily.
Almost all of the PMR gear used by Texaco, Elf etc failed to be of
any real use on the beaches due to limited range and battery power.
Next time - and make no mistake there will be a next time, I just
hope the guys from Raynet will be there and prepared to do it all again.
This sentiment is echoed by the major players in the oil business in
this part of the world one of which has seen fit to provide the
replacement equipment for the South Pembs 70cms repeater.
---
Roy.
Jerry Pallister
In message <32bb22ff...@news.dial.pipex.com>
wa...@dial.pipex.com (Walt Davidson) writes:
> Protecting Royals? Whatever next!
> If the tabloid press is to be believed, most "radio hams" (sic) spend
> all their time eavesdropping on Royal telephone conversations! I never
> knew it was a function of Raynet to protect the originators of such
> telephone calls.
> 73 de G3NYY
> "'Curiouser and curiouser', said Alice ..."
> --
> Walt Davidson E-mail: wa...@dial.pipex.com
> wa...@enterprise.net
>
I was of course refering to the Budget of the Gloucestershire
Constabulary, NOT RAYNET. but of course Walt, I'm sure you knew that.
Ah HUMBUG...
Walt Davidson
Jerry Pallister <g1...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The bulk of the budget is used in protecting the 3 Royals who have
>decided to reside in this County, and NO we don't get any assistance
>for this protection from the Home Office.
Protecting Royals? Whatever next!
Hugh Davies
In article <32be8acb...@news.dial.pipex.com>, wa...@dial.pipex.com (Walt Davidson) writes:
>Mike Willis <m...@rcru.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>But you don't need legal authority to wear a yellow anorak
>>or stand in the pouring rain.
I imagine the wearers of yellow jackets (and I agree completely
with Walt's comment - why don't these dickheads become Special
Constables?) are courting a charge of impersonating a police
officer - but then, that's the point, isn't it?
BTW, those yellow tabards are referred to by the forces in
Northern Ireland as "Shoot Me" Jackets....
Regards,
Hugh Davies, G0CNR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Internet has subsumed everything that was interesting about amateur
radio." Phil Karn, KA9Q.
http://www.axalotl.demon.co.uk
Jerry Pallister
> The recent "fun run" back and forth across countless South
> Pembrokeshire beaches for a period of six weeks proved quite
> conclusively that the claims made for modern mobile phones bear
> little relation to fact, and in no circumstances should this type of
> equipment be regarded as in any way suitable in a real emergency in
> anything like "fringe area" conditions.
> As to the claims that the emergency services have better equipment
> than us poor self financed amateurs - forget it!
> During this large on going emergency situation so far as I am aware
> we used only four amateur frequencies for *emergency* traffic, across
> some fifteen working locations daily.
> Almost all of the PMR gear used by Texaco, Elf etc failed to be of
> any real use on the beaches due to limited range and battery power.
> Next time - and make no mistake there will be a next time, I just
> hope the guys from Raynet will be there and prepared to do it all again.
> This sentiment is echoed by the major players in the oil business in
> this part of the world one of which has seen fit to provide the
> replacement equipment for the South Pembs 70cms repeater.
> ---
> Roy.
>
Not to mention the recent article concerning the M40 Motorway crash
involving some 100 vehicles. It was reported that the Mobile Phone
users involved in this pile up, caused havoc with the Police fire &
Ambulance Frequency transmissions...Perhaps if some people read the
Civil Protection Magazine they would see just how much the Radio
Amateur's equipment is far better than that of the "User Services".
Also in this magazine it is plain to see that many other Countries
are taking a look at the RAYNET ( emergency comms) facilities
provided in this Country, as they see it of great use to them.
The trouble seems to be that they forget the floods so many years
ago, which then permitted this facility to be allowed on the Amateur Licence.
What say you Roy ..
Roy Holt
In message <199612212...@zetnet.co.uk>
Jerry Pallister <g1...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> Not to mention the recent article concerning the M40 Motorway crash
> involving some 100 vehicles. It was reported that the Mobile Phone
> users involved in this pile up, caused havoc with the Police fire &
> Ambulance Frequency transmissions...Perhaps if some people read the
> Civil Protection Magazine they would see just how much the Radio
> Amateur's equipment is far better than that of the "User Services".
> The trouble seems to be that they forget the floods so many years
> ago, which then permitted this facility to be allowed on the Amateur Licence.
In this part of the world, where the local power distributor believes
planned maintenance is a regular visit to the local chapel, we often
get power cuts for a considerable time during the slightest inclement weather.
Last winter during a snowfall (by no means harsh), we had villages
cut off with no phones, no power. and no alternative means of communication.
Monitoring the Raynet transmissions as these lads took four wheel
drives over the "tops" to set up a comms system was an education.
I suggest anyone who believes the mobile phone hype, that helicopters
can fly in anything other than relatively calm weather, or that the
emergency services have superior communications systems, best not
stray to far into the more remote parts of the UK.
Our local radio society emergency team which was so heavily involved
in Sea Empress problem is not in fact "Raynet" but is controlled
directly by the EPD. This means no bike races, no bun fights, no
prancing about in shiny jackets, and no politics,- best of both
worlds and a real emergency only service.
Cheers.
---
Roy.
Alan J Holmes
In article <32bae46f...@nntp.best.com>,
Ah, I hadn't realised that I was supposed to be in 'self
training' to assist in commercial events.
Alan
James Dunnett
Martin Briscoe wrote:
> ...the [Fairford] Event is for the RAF Funds...
Didn't know the RAF were so hard up that they have to
stage the IAS to remain operational. Wouldn't surprise
me though...
Surely you mean RAFBF ?
James Dunnett
you...@best.com wrote:
> I suggest you study your AR Licence as one of the reasons for issue is
> 'self training' *not* clogging up the bands with aimless chatter:-)
In that case Bob, most of us had better go QRT.
Robert N Young
>you...@best.com wrote:
>
>> I suggest you study your AR Licence as one of the reasons for issue is
>> 'self training' *not* clogging up the bands with aimless chatter:-)
>
>In that case Bob, most of us had better go QRT.
>
Umm.....Only one of the reasons. There is room for everybody but I was
responding to a particular posting.
If my memory serves me 2M and 70cms aren't particularly clogged:-)
and HF is mainly for masochists and zealots:-))
Bob.
Alan J Holmes
In article <32bf23af...@nntp.best.com>,>On 23 Dec 1996 12:30:09 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
>Holmes) wrote:
>>In article <32bae46f...@nntp.best.com>,
>>Robert N Young <you...@best.com> wrote:
>>>On 20 Dec 1996 12:45:15 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
>>>Holmes) wrote:
>>Ah, I hadn't realised that I was supposed to be in 'self
>>training' to assist in commercial events.
>and that classic of misinterpretation demonstrates your lack of
>understanding of what training is about. Taking part in a *live*
>event, regardless of it's commercial content. is a useful training
>exercise.
Ah, I've clearly missunderstood the relavence of the title of
this newsgroup uk.radio.amateur
^^^^^^^
I do beg your forgiveness.
Alan
Robert N Young
>In article <32bae46f...@nntp.best.com>,
>Robert N Young <you...@best.com> wrote:
>>On 20 Dec 1996 12:45:15 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
>>Holmes) wrote:
>Ah, I hadn't realised that I was supposed to be in 'self
>training' to assist in commercial events.
and that classic of misinterpretation demonstrates your lack of
understanding of what training is about. Taking part in a *live*
event, regardless of it's commercial content. is a useful training
exercise.
Putting it this way:-
Sitting on a dining room chair holding a dinner plate and going
through the motions of driving a car isn't quite the same as driving a
car.
Merry Christmas:-)
Bob.
Robert N Young
On 24 Dec 1996 11:17:23 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
Holmes) wrote:
>In article <32bf23af...@nntp.best.com>,
>Robert N Young <you...@best.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Dec 1996 12:30:09 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
>>Holmes) wrote:
>
>>>In article <32bae46f...@nntp.best.com>,
>>>Robert N Young <you...@best.com> wrote:
>>>>On 20 Dec 1996 12:45:15 -0000, Alan....@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J
>>>>Holmes) wrote:
>
>>>Ah, I hadn't realised that I was supposed to be in 'self
>>>training' to assist in commercial events.
>>and that classic of misinterpretation demonstrates your lack of
>>understanding of what training is about. Taking part in a *live*
>>event, regardless of it's commercial content. is a useful training
>>exercise.
>
>Ah, I've clearly missunderstood the relavence of the title of
>this newsgroup uk.radio.amateur
> ^^^^^^^
>
>I do beg your forgiveness.
>
>Alan
>
Granted:-)
Bob (G8SGW).
Denis Pibworth
On Sun, 15 Dec 96 22:51:07 GMT, Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris)
wrote:
>Q. Why was there no consultation on the new band plan?
>
>A. There was. The low half of the band has been under review for
> some time, and opinions were solicited in Rad Com (April 1994,
> page 8). The results were published in Rad Com (December 1994,
> page 6). Information was also put on the Internet and Packet.
This is partially correct. I dug out the December 1994 RadCom and
found that the relevant part of the proposal then was as follows:
144.510MHz - 144.710MHz Data Communications.
144.710MHz - 145.000MHz All Modes.
This did not affect the RAYNET allocations.
Hoorah! we all thought...
But hold on....
In the new bandplan this has changed to:
144.800MHz - 144.990MHz Digital Communications
144.500MHz - 144.800MHz All Mode.
...which quite clearly does affect the RAYNET allocations.
Not really the consultation process working at its best, methinks....
>1. Given the choice, would groups rather have a block of frequencies
> all together - similar to the 144.775 to 144.850 block, but lower in
> the band - or would you be prepared to accept several frequencies
> scattered through the MHz? The reason for asking is that if a block
> is preferred, then 144.775 MHz is also likely to go. By taking
> scattered frequencies, 144.775 MHz can probably be retained.
I have to declare bias here as we use 144.775MHz, but my suggestion
would be:
1. That Raynet move to 144.625MHz, 144.650MHz and 144.675MHz. Many
RAYNET groups use crystal controlled rigs. So do many Packet
operators. The RSGB could co-ordinate a nationwide crystal "Swap-Shop"
between the two users.
2. Designate 144.825MHz and 144.850MHz as Data Channels "used by
RAYNET". (Not "Emergency Comms Priority" please - that seems to wind
people up!)
Denis Pibworth G4KWT (10134...@compuserve.com)
Group Controller
Reading and West Berkshire Raynet
R.A.E.N - 06/BK/012
Affiliated to the R.S.G.B. (G0VPE).
Denis Pibworth
On 18 Dec 1996 11:11:28 GMT, ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk (Richard
Lamont) wrote:
>I wouldn't mind these so much if they were 'emergency priority'
>frequencies. In practice, they are private Raynet group natter channels.
>Raynet groups have no more right to a private natter channel than
>anyone else.
Not true. If you were to come up on our weekly Net (Berkshire -
144.775MHz - Monday Night at 7:30pm) you would be most welcome, just
as you would on the local Radio Club net. It is most certainly not
private. I should add that the "nattering" will be about RAYNET
related matters however. I do disagree with the term "emergency
priority frequencies" however. They used to be designated RAYNET
channels, or (my preference) "used by RAYNET". Unfortunately, not all
Amateur Radio Emergency Communications groups are part of RAYNET and
so the name was changed.
>It also seems to me that as the cellphone and Home Office
>emergency systems get steadily more universal, reliable and
>resilient, the probability of Raynet playing a significant
>role in a genuine emergency must steadily fall.
I agree, except that past experience has shown that, when a major
emergency situation arises, these communications systems soon get
overloaded and so every little bit extra helps. Our role would
probably not be very significant but it would help.
We will be assisting with a Youth Organisation overnight hike in March
of next year. The base is in the Scout Hut in a little village called
Compton on the Berkshire Downs. There is no landline telephone and
mobile phones do not work (it's in one of those dead spots that none
of the network providers will admit to....!). The mains supply does
have a habit of disappearing without warning also - but that is
another story...)
>(Marathons and the like don't count - they're not emergencies at all.)
If you were running a Marathon and were to suffer medical problems and
your only link with First Aid assistance was RAYNET, you might think
differently. This happens!
>Given these facts, and given John's comment that the UK is the
>only country in Region 1 to bother with this sort of thing,
>perhaps the frequencies that Raynet is losing to the data
>section should *not* be replaced elsewhere in the band.
>They should just use the ordinary FM voice channels.
Why? RAYNET is a sizeable special interest group and so is just as
entitled to designated frequencies as (to quote from the new bandplan)
SSTV, ATV Talkback, RTTY, Fax, FSTV Talkback, Digital Communications
and manned spacecraft uplinks (??) to name but a few.
Denis Pibworth G4KWT (10134...@compuserve.com)
Group Controller
Reading and West Berkshire Raynet
R.A.E.N. - 06/BK/012
Denis Pibworth
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:14:26 GMT, Roy Holt <roy....@zetnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>In this part of the world, where the local power distributor believes
>planned maintenance is a regular visit to the local chapel, we often
>get power cuts for a considerable time during the slightest inclement weather.
>
>Last winter during a snowfall (by no means harsh), we had villages
>cut off with no phones, no power. and no alternative means of communication.
>
>Monitoring the Raynet transmissions as these lads took four wheel
>drives over the "tops" to set up a comms system was an education.
>
>I suggest anyone who believes the mobile phone hype, that helicopters
>can fly in anything other than relatively calm weather, or that the
>emergency services have superior communications systems, best not
>stray to far into the more remote parts of the UK.
>
>Our local radio society emergency team which was so heavily involved
>in Sea Empress problem is not in fact "Raynet" but is controlled
>directly by the EPD. This means no bike races, no bun fights, no
>prancing about in shiny jackets, and no politics,- best of both
>worlds and a real emergency only service.
>
>Cheers.
>---
>
>Roy.
All that exciting emergency comms work to do and you never wear a
fluorescent safety jacket, Roy - pull the other one...!!!
Down here in Berkshire we very rarely get extremes of weather and the
power is pretty reliable ( I guess we all pay our bills down here!).
However there is the threat of severe flooding in some areas adjacent
to the River Thames and we are very close to Heathrow Airport, giving
other potential man-made problems. Having said that, we have not had a
major emergency to get involved with in the last 15 years. But we have
to be ready should we be needed. The problem then arises of how to
sustain an emergency comms group without a regular supply of
emergencies. The answer is that, like many other groups, we provide
safety cover at various (usually charitable) events. By this I mean
providing a communications network that enhances the safety of the
Event. This allows us to operate together as a team and "hone and
tweak" our operating and equipment management skills.
Ah yes, the politics. I wondered when someone would bring this one up.
Just to reassure you, Roy, that there is no politics down here - that
is reserved for RAYNET at national level - we just get on and do the
job!
As to the broader issue of whether this type of activity is "real"
Amateur Radio or not , hasn't the same been said of Packet, Repeaters,
Japanese "Black Boxes", Contests, etc etc (the list is seamingly
endless..). Knocking the "Special Interests" of others has always been
fashionable in Amateur Radio - each to his own, I say.....
Denis Pibworth (Denis...@compuserve.com)
Reading and West Berkshire RAYNET
R.A.E.N. Group: 06/BK/012
John Morris
In article <32c598f9...@news.spry.com>
10134...@compuserve.com "Denis Pibworth" writes:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 96 22:51:07 GMT, Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris)
> wrote:
>
> >Q. Why was there no consultation on the new band plan?
> >
> >A. There was. The low half of the band has been under review for
> > some time, and opinions were solicited in Rad Com (April 1994,
> > page 8). The results were published in Rad Com (December 1994,
> > page 6). Information was also put on the Internet and Packet.
>
> This is partially correct. I dug out the December 1994 RadCom and
> found that the relevant part of the proposal then was as follows:
>
> 144.510MHz - 144.710MHz Data Communications.
> 144.710MHz - 145.000MHz All Modes.
>
> This did not affect the RAYNET allocations.
> Hoorah! we all thought...
>
> But hold on....
>
> In the new bandplan this has changed to:
>
> 144.800MHz - 144.990MHz Digital Communications
> 144.500MHz - 144.800MHz All Mode.
>
> ...which quite clearly does affect the RAYNET allocations.
>
> Not really the consultation process working at its best, methinks....
You trimmed the part of the message which explained what then happened.
The alternative would almost certainly have been "no change", which
would have avoided any disruption to Raynet (et al) groups, but would
have been very unsatisfactory to other users. We could have said "wait
until we consult back" - but that would have meant stasis for at least
another three years.
> >1. Given the choice, would groups rather have a block of frequencies
> > all together - similar to the 144.775 to 144.850 block, but lower in
> > the band - or would you be prepared to accept several frequencies
> > scattered through the MHz? The reason for asking is that if a block
> > is preferred, then 144.775 MHz is also likely to go. By taking
> > scattered frequencies, 144.775 MHz can probably be retained.
>
> I have to declare bias here as we use 144.775MHz, but my suggestion
> would be:
>
> 1. That Raynet move to 144.625MHz, 144.650MHz and 144.675MHz. Many
> RAYNET groups use crystal controlled rigs. So do many Packet
> operators. The RSGB could co-ordinate a nationwide crystal "Swap-Shop"
> between the two users.
Many thanks for that input.
> 2. Designate 144.825MHz and 144.850MHz as Data Channels "used by
> RAYNET". (Not "Emergency Comms Priority" please - that seems to wind
> people up!)
The organisation of 144.800 to 144.990 is being worked on by DCC.
73, John.
--
John Morris However, I still think that both points are worth
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk making. The fact that they are contradictory is
GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU ludicrous, but still irrelevant.
- Greg Goss
Roy Holt
In message <851871...@kirsta.demon.co.uk>
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris) writes:
> Many RAYNET groups use crystal controlled rigs. So do many Packet
> operators. The RSGB could co-ordinate a nationwide crystal "Swap-Shop"
> between the two users.
Can we also assume that Pigs might soon begin to fly ?
Cheers.
---
Roy.
Roy Holt
In message <32c5ae3...@news.spry.com>
10134...@compuserve.com (Denis Pibworth) writes:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:14:26 GMT, Roy Holt <roy....@zetnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >Our local radio society emergency team which was so heavily involved
> >in Sea Empress problem is not in fact "Raynet" but is controlled
> >directly by the EPD. This means no bike races, no bun fights, no
> >prancing about in shiny jackets, and no politics,- best of both
> >worlds and a real emergency only service.
> All that exciting emergency comms work to do and you never wear a
> fluorescent safety jacket, Roy - pull the other one...!!!
What exiting emergency comms work ? Walking/driving across miles of
oily beach in the P****** rain taking orders for JCBs, tankers, or
hot lunches for the lads is not what I would call exiting. After the
first few days any enthusiasm for the seaside quickly faded, and an
eight (or more) hour slog between tides, with a round trip drive of
125+ miles daily soon became hard work.
> As to the broader issue of whether this type of activity is "real"
> Amateur Radio or not , hasn't the same been said of Packet, Repeaters,
> Japanese "Black Boxes", Contests, etc etc (the list is seemingly
> endless..). Knocking the "Special Interests" of others has always been
> fashionable in Amateur Radio - each to his own, I say.....
Agreed! No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me what the term
"real amateur radio" means. My own interpretation is that the phrase
is a simple way of rejecting an aspect of the hobby out of hand, for
no real reason whatsoever.
Cheers.
---
Roy.
Michael J Wooding
In article <199612302...@zetnet.co.uk>, Jerry Pallister
<g1...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>There is plenty of room for us to all enjoy our hobby, and it would
>be much nicer if we could all get on with it without having to go
>through the usual run of the mill of justifying our particular area
>of interest.
Hear hear - more power to your elbows.
Happy New year ... Mike
--
Michael J Wooding G6IQM email: vhf-...@g6iqm.demon.co.uk
http://www.clearlight.com/~vhfcomm & http://www.g6iqm.demon.co.uk/vhfcomm.htm
KM Publications, 5 Ware Orchard, Barby, Nr.Rugby, CV23 8UF, UK
Tel: (0)1788 890365 Fax: (0)1788 891883
VHF Communications Magazine - Especially covering VHF, UHF and Microwaves
John Morris
In article <199612311...@zetnet.co.uk>
roy....@zetnet.co.uk "Roy Holt" writes:
> In message <851871...@kirsta.demon.co.uk>
> Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris) writes:
>
> > Many RAYNET groups use crystal controlled rigs. So do many Packet
> > operators. The RSGB could co-ordinate a nationwide crystal "Swap-Shop"
> > between the two users.
Nope - wasn't me that wrote that. Let's be a bit more careful with those
attributions, folks!
73, John.
--
John Morris Due to circumstances beyond my control,
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU - Ashleigh Brilliant
James Dunnett
roy....@zetnet.co asked:
> Can we also assume that Pigs might soon begin to fly ?
Yes. In helicopters mostly.
73
-Jim | They that can give up an essential liberty
jay...@cix.compulink.co.uk | to purchase a temporary safety deserve
g4...@jimdee.prestel.co.uk | neither liberty nor safety.
g4rga@gb7tjf.#45.gbr.eu | - Benjamin Franklin 1706 - 1790.
RadioManUK
RAYNET......A waste of time and spectrum......should be filed in the
"Recycle Bin"
Mike B.