This morning I was playing with 10M, which required the "ham-stick" to be set up on the balcony. Having no luck with that effort, I replaced the 10M ham-stick with the 6M version. For whatever reason, six meter SSB and CW blasts through the electronics in my (and most likely others') place. FM is okay, though, so I thought that I could give the St. Paul 53.470 machine a try and see if it was out of testing yet.
Well, the 53.470 repeater didn't respond. On a whim, I tried the Burnsville 53.370 FM repeater that's been down since September or so. TCRC's website still shows it as out of service, but it's not updated regularly.
As it turned out, the 53.370- (PL 100.0) is working again. The controller now has a voice ID, which is getting more common around here. I "ker-chunk"ed it with 5W, though I couldn't hear my voice on my scanner. Maybe I'm not getting in to the machine very well, but it took about 15W to open up the machine before it went down.
I've never heard anyone on the 53.370 machine, so this isn't particularly exciting news for most people. Burnsville is pretty far to the south-east for good metro area coverage, so the machine will probably languish for a long time -- especially considering that the club's website is telling its members that it doesn't work.
Six meters in general seems to be hyped-up and disappointing. Even with the solar cycle somewhat favourable, the band is abandoned for weak signal. I've never heard any of the Pacific FM DX that numerous hams have told tales about. It's just empty and noisy, and not at all "magic". At least with 1.25M, people know that there's almost no activity. Six meters has been blown up out of proportion by a few advocates in what seems to be a desperate effort to create activity out of nothing by bluff and BS.
That said, I'm hoping someone gets on our restored 6M repeater. It would be nice to get an idea of the range that the band offers on FM.
UPDATE: As Pete pointed out, TCRC has updated their site to reflect the on-air status of the WOBU 6M machine. I've also updated RepeaterBook for them.
Saturday, 28 December 2013
SuperLink? Really?
When I discuss the possibility of a state-wide linked network in MN with other hams, it isn't very illuminating. In fact, it's discouraging to think that these people think that they are some kind of "elite". There are two basic responses, and both are tossed out like well-worn, knee-jerk reactions. I'm sceptical that those who mouth these two reasons even believe them, or even find them compelling.
The first reason is: "We already have the SuperLink! Yay, SuperLink! It's so awesome!".
When you point out the facts about the SuperLink, and how yawn-worthy it really is, then we go to the second reason. The second reason is only mentioned when the first reason is de-bunked, which is very telling.
The second reason is: "It costs money! OMG, who's gonna pay for it?"
When you point out that the repeaters are already there - that they just need to be linked - and that SD, WI, IA, and MI seem to be able to scrape together the money to build and maintain a linked system, we move to the third reason.
The third reason is always: "Shut up!"
The web page for the SuperLink system is here. It's not particularly up-to-date. For example, it brags about a Twin Cities repeater that's been closed for about a year and half. It does make clear, however, that the SuperLink is not a constant link. "It is an on-demand type linking system that is turned on and off with user sent touch tone codes", we are told. Okay, that's not what SD, WI, IA, and MI have.
What the SuperLink really is, then, is a much more restrictive and a fairly crippled version of IRLP, only without any of the efficiencies of the internet. Instead, the SuperLink adds the cost of an entire duplicate UHF network, which exists alongside of the two-metre repeaters. Which is weird, you know, since there's no money and all.
It's more restrictive because, as the web page explains, 'The purpose of this linking system is to allow for communications between two or multiple amateur radio stations in the areas around the selected repeaters. General "CQ" (calling all stations) type operation is not encouraged on the SUPERLINK system, and in some cases owners of the linked repeaters will shut off links that are made for this type of operation.". This makes it more restrictive than IRLP and EchoLink, and more restrictive than the other linked networks in the State.
Here's what the SuperLink is: it's a really clunky way to connect to some relatively remote VHF repeaters, if you happen to know the callsign of a particular ham in that area. These remote VHF repeaters are, of course, dead. There's no spontaneity, no surprise at meeting new hams, and no reason for the locals to monitor the repeater in hopes that someone will call for them from a distant area. And, unlike IRLP or EchoLink, only hams with two-metre radios in ND or MN can access the network. No interesting conversations with people in different countries on your local repeater. Nope, this is Serious Business going on here.
It's interesting that, whenever I ask any of the advocates of the SuperLink if they have actually used it, the answer is almost always, "No". They've heard of it, and they have false impressions of its capabilities.
Yeah, it's for Serious Business. You can make a specific call to a specific area for a specific person, and that's it. That's really not what SD, WI, IA, and MI have.
Currently, there are nine VHF repeaters spread out across the northern half of the State. There is no coverage south of St. Cloud, and the Twin Cities is left out. Even if the SuperLink weren't Super-Clunky and Super-Serious, it's not that useful with such limited coverage. And this "awesome" system requires a parallel network of UHF repeater links.
Now, Wisconsin has an actual, full-time linked network covering the vast majority of the State, and it operates on UHF. And the UHF network is accessible by EchoLink. In fact, there's a separate linked VHF network being built by WECOMM, with digital coverage alongside of voice. It seems to be proceeding, even though the "elite" MN hams think that such a thing is financially impossible.
South Dakota has the SDLink system. Hey, don't they know that something like that is horribly expensive? Oh, and it's cross-band, too? Don't they know that serious hams use two metres? And they have an audio feed so that anyone can listen online to activity? Don't they know that this is impossible?The SDLink is a full-time, always-connected system. It's not a case where you dial up a specific repeater. If you talk on one machine, you talk on all of them at once.
SD is a State with far fewer people, and far less population density than MN. Weird how they can pull off such an impossible task, isn't it?
"Shut up!", the MN "elite" responds.
With the prevalence of fibre-optic cable even in rural areas, linking twelve or so VHF repeaters by internet should be relatively cheap and fairly easy. Of course, that's not "real", because it uses the internet. That's why we need the UHF links for the SuperLink, otherwise it wouldn't be 'real'.
One generation is just now finally accepting repeaters as 'real', rather than using simplex. Linked repeaters are 'cheating' in some incomprehensible way. And any use of the internet is akin to voodoo, and has nothing to do with ham radio. It's mind-boggling how common this attitude is among hams in MN. We are all supposed to have 75-foot towers, and huge two metre horizontal beams with expensive rotators, and 100 watt amps at minimum. And we are supposed to be using two metre SSB, not FM. Any of these "elite" bozos will tell you that ham radio is only in trouble because it's too easy. If we make it a lot harder, and a lot more expensive, and close it off to anyone with an HOA, then people will flock to the hobby, because people want to talk to the "elite". Naturally. So this begrudging acceptance of FM, repeaters, and linked machines in the form of the SuperLink is an immense concession on the part of the "elite".
On the other hand, MN is home to others that are visionary, rather than retrograde. For example, a struggling linked network in central MN has emerged over the past couple of years against the odds - and against the old model of thirty years ago. Machines are being linked together by the internet (gasp!) using EchoLink. This allows people from outside of the RF coverage area to access the network. And the machines are cross-band linked, almost as if the people who run this network don't know that cross-band wasn't "done" thirty years ago. Oh, yeah: a digital D-Star machine tops off the new-fangled gimmickry. That's enough to make any of the "elite" snort in derision. A 1.25M machine has been added to this linked network, too, in defiance of the "elite" conventional wisdom regarding the band. If anything, this small network is growing, and access to it is getting easier.
Of course, I've written before about LSAC and the potential of that linked network. While the trend has been for machines in the SuperLink to die and not be replaced, LSAC is making a major rebound. Links and hubs are being restored, and a big VHF repeater has recently been established in Duluth. Older machines are being maintained so that they can continue into the future. By summer of 2014, the north and south ends of the network could very well be linked together into a full-time network. Not some clunky DTMF-based 'link' that only one person can use, either. And not just two metres, either, like the SuperLink. At some point, we could see 6M FM, 900 MHz, and 1.25M machines brought into the network, as they already exist as standalone machines. I'm not sure if EchoLink will be incorporated into LSAC, however. And LSAC faces a similarly severe limitation as the SuperLink: no access to the Twin Cities metro area.
Another network that does everything 'wrong', from the perspective of the "elite", is HandiHam. Not only does it include cross-band links between three bands, it has redundancy of coverage on UHF with multiple machines. The addition of simplex links in far-flung areas to increase access, and the ease of adding more simplex links, brings the network down to the level of the average ham. Anyone that can reach one point in the network has access to the entire network, and you aren't limited to calling for a particular ham on the network. I guess that the HandiHam network isn't for Serious Business like the SuperLink. To add to the horror of this easily-accessed, full-time linked network is the inclusion of EchoLink (gasp!). Surely people know that any mingling of ham radio and the internet turns the effort into something other than 'real' ham radio? That's not how things were done thirty years ago! You can't just allow hams from other countries and other parts of the U.S. to talk on the local repeater network! That's not 'real', and it has the potential for activity that isn't Very Serious Business. Obviously, if the "elite" simply engages in some smug chuckling over this abomination, and makes it known that They Do Not Approve of this Newfangled Tomfoolery, it will die off. Instead, it's expanding and could include 6M and 10M FM at some point.
The SuperLink represents the best shot from a group of hams that were once visionary thirty years ago, but are now hidebound and trapped in a model that is no longer relevant. They certainly have a right to push this model if they believe in it. There's no shortage of smug derision from these people concerning the efforts of others to move into the future, so they've kind of lost the moral high ground.
In my opinion, the SuperLink is not a viable state-wide linked network. The machines should employ hubs linked by fibre, with the UHF link machines as a redundant back-up. These UHF links should also do double duty as cross-band repeaters at the sites. The entire network, including ND, could probably boil down to five hubs. UHF (RF) links would be used to link several repeaters to a hub, and the hub would connect to other hubs using fibre. Connecting the fibre to the internet via EchoLink would allow growth at almost no cost. Simplex links to the network, on a variety of bands, would leverage the equipment of individual users as part of the whole network. It would also be easier to add new repeaters to a hub, rather than the entire network chain. This could allow six metre FM or 1.25M to be viable, since these machines would have access to the entire network. And it would be very simple to link repeaters in the southern half of the State to the network by the internet. Then, create an audio link so that non-hams can listen to the activity over the internet and you have something that is no longer for the "elite".
In terms of money, there's a case to be made for some State funding and removal of obstacles. The fibre network, for example, is something that most likely exists - or should exist - already. Access to the fibre is something that the State could pay for, and extension of fibre into areas when road construction is done is another relatively cheap way that the State could make long-term viability of the network possible. We aren't talking about the State buying repeaters, antennae, computers or feed-line. The State does have towers, though. They are used by the DNR, Highway Patrol, and MNDOT, for example. And the State could ease approval of new towers for the network, if they would be needed.
The State's interest is in having a constantly-accessible network running throughout the State for motorists, boaters, hikers, and tourists. It could be valuable in emergencies, provided that the RF links are maintained and there are redundant fibre paths for the hubs. Once the backbone is there, adding new capabilities would be trivially easy: digital access or GMRS, for example.
Do you know what would really encourage people to get their licences? Knowing that there's an infrastructure allowing them access to a wide variety of people even if they are camping, fishing, driving, or hiking in remote areas. That's much more attractive than the chance to get on a dead repeater and talk to no one over the course of several hours. Hmmm. Why is that repeater dead? Is it because it's in a rural area where only about a dozen hams have access to it, and they only get on it once a week for a net that's really boring? And those dozen hams don't get on it the rest of the time because they know that nobody else is on it? Okay, then: open it up to hundreds of communities that each have a dozen hams, and there will be someone out there to talk to. And, as we all know, activity draws activity. With more people talking, others will join in -- and even more will listen and join in at other times. The more people that get in the habit of listening, the more valuable the network is for emergencies, too. Open it up to the internet with an audio link for non-hams to listen, and they'll see the value in it. They get their licences, and the whole thing expands.
Okay, sure: it's not HF, and it's not like it was thirty years ago, and it's not Serious Business. It's what ham radio needs to be, though. The "elite" model is an ugly death over the course of the next ten years. Nobody wants to talk to the "elite", because the "elite" have nothing to say that's of value to the "non-elite". Most people don't have a time in their lives when two-way radio was relevant to them. They don't know what "CB" is, much less what ham radio is. Get over your stupid, out-dated ideas and realise that most people look at two-way radio as something like travel on horseback! Are you gonna sell people on the idea of travelling on horseback by offering them the chance to hang with the "elite", when it's glaringly obvious that this "elite" is dramatically out-of-touch with the times? Sure, it's uncomfortable, absurdly expensive, and completely impractical -- but you can be "one of the few". That's how ham radio is being "sold" today, and it's stupid.
A state-wide linked network isn't a guarantee of the hobby's future. It merely gives it a fighting chance to appeal to a generation that grew up with cell phones in a world where long-distance communication wasn't difficult nor required specialised skills. If you think that people get into ham radio to call for hours without results, then enjoy your future of dead repeaters.
There is something to be said for local communication. A state-wide linked network doesn't preclude local-coverage machines, though. I know that 'geezer logic' often devolves into a crazy world where everything must be either totally one way or totally another. But that's not reality. The SuperLink hasn't changed any of that. People still segregate into non-linked repeaters where linked options exist. It's an option.
The first reason is: "We already have the SuperLink! Yay, SuperLink! It's so awesome!".
When you point out the facts about the SuperLink, and how yawn-worthy it really is, then we go to the second reason. The second reason is only mentioned when the first reason is de-bunked, which is very telling.
The second reason is: "It costs money! OMG, who's gonna pay for it?"
When you point out that the repeaters are already there - that they just need to be linked - and that SD, WI, IA, and MI seem to be able to scrape together the money to build and maintain a linked system, we move to the third reason.
The third reason is always: "Shut up!"
The web page for the SuperLink system is here. It's not particularly up-to-date. For example, it brags about a Twin Cities repeater that's been closed for about a year and half. It does make clear, however, that the SuperLink is not a constant link. "It is an on-demand type linking system that is turned on and off with user sent touch tone codes", we are told. Okay, that's not what SD, WI, IA, and MI have.
What the SuperLink really is, then, is a much more restrictive and a fairly crippled version of IRLP, only without any of the efficiencies of the internet. Instead, the SuperLink adds the cost of an entire duplicate UHF network, which exists alongside of the two-metre repeaters. Which is weird, you know, since there's no money and all.
It's more restrictive because, as the web page explains, 'The purpose of this linking system is to allow for communications between two or multiple amateur radio stations in the areas around the selected repeaters. General "CQ" (calling all stations) type operation is not encouraged on the SUPERLINK system, and in some cases owners of the linked repeaters will shut off links that are made for this type of operation.". This makes it more restrictive than IRLP and EchoLink, and more restrictive than the other linked networks in the State.
Here's what the SuperLink is: it's a really clunky way to connect to some relatively remote VHF repeaters, if you happen to know the callsign of a particular ham in that area. These remote VHF repeaters are, of course, dead. There's no spontaneity, no surprise at meeting new hams, and no reason for the locals to monitor the repeater in hopes that someone will call for them from a distant area. And, unlike IRLP or EchoLink, only hams with two-metre radios in ND or MN can access the network. No interesting conversations with people in different countries on your local repeater. Nope, this is Serious Business going on here.
It's interesting that, whenever I ask any of the advocates of the SuperLink if they have actually used it, the answer is almost always, "No". They've heard of it, and they have false impressions of its capabilities.
Yeah, it's for Serious Business. You can make a specific call to a specific area for a specific person, and that's it. That's really not what SD, WI, IA, and MI have.
Currently, there are nine VHF repeaters spread out across the northern half of the State. There is no coverage south of St. Cloud, and the Twin Cities is left out. Even if the SuperLink weren't Super-Clunky and Super-Serious, it's not that useful with such limited coverage. And this "awesome" system requires a parallel network of UHF repeater links.
Now, Wisconsin has an actual, full-time linked network covering the vast majority of the State, and it operates on UHF. And the UHF network is accessible by EchoLink. In fact, there's a separate linked VHF network being built by WECOMM, with digital coverage alongside of voice. It seems to be proceeding, even though the "elite" MN hams think that such a thing is financially impossible.
South Dakota has the SDLink system. Hey, don't they know that something like that is horribly expensive? Oh, and it's cross-band, too? Don't they know that serious hams use two metres? And they have an audio feed so that anyone can listen online to activity? Don't they know that this is impossible?The SDLink is a full-time, always-connected system. It's not a case where you dial up a specific repeater. If you talk on one machine, you talk on all of them at once.
SD is a State with far fewer people, and far less population density than MN. Weird how they can pull off such an impossible task, isn't it?
"Shut up!", the MN "elite" responds.
With the prevalence of fibre-optic cable even in rural areas, linking twelve or so VHF repeaters by internet should be relatively cheap and fairly easy. Of course, that's not "real", because it uses the internet. That's why we need the UHF links for the SuperLink, otherwise it wouldn't be 'real'.
One generation is just now finally accepting repeaters as 'real', rather than using simplex. Linked repeaters are 'cheating' in some incomprehensible way. And any use of the internet is akin to voodoo, and has nothing to do with ham radio. It's mind-boggling how common this attitude is among hams in MN. We are all supposed to have 75-foot towers, and huge two metre horizontal beams with expensive rotators, and 100 watt amps at minimum. And we are supposed to be using two metre SSB, not FM. Any of these "elite" bozos will tell you that ham radio is only in trouble because it's too easy. If we make it a lot harder, and a lot more expensive, and close it off to anyone with an HOA, then people will flock to the hobby, because people want to talk to the "elite". Naturally. So this begrudging acceptance of FM, repeaters, and linked machines in the form of the SuperLink is an immense concession on the part of the "elite".
On the other hand, MN is home to others that are visionary, rather than retrograde. For example, a struggling linked network in central MN has emerged over the past couple of years against the odds - and against the old model of thirty years ago. Machines are being linked together by the internet (gasp!) using EchoLink. This allows people from outside of the RF coverage area to access the network. And the machines are cross-band linked, almost as if the people who run this network don't know that cross-band wasn't "done" thirty years ago. Oh, yeah: a digital D-Star machine tops off the new-fangled gimmickry. That's enough to make any of the "elite" snort in derision. A 1.25M machine has been added to this linked network, too, in defiance of the "elite" conventional wisdom regarding the band. If anything, this small network is growing, and access to it is getting easier.
Of course, I've written before about LSAC and the potential of that linked network. While the trend has been for machines in the SuperLink to die and not be replaced, LSAC is making a major rebound. Links and hubs are being restored, and a big VHF repeater has recently been established in Duluth. Older machines are being maintained so that they can continue into the future. By summer of 2014, the north and south ends of the network could very well be linked together into a full-time network. Not some clunky DTMF-based 'link' that only one person can use, either. And not just two metres, either, like the SuperLink. At some point, we could see 6M FM, 900 MHz, and 1.25M machines brought into the network, as they already exist as standalone machines. I'm not sure if EchoLink will be incorporated into LSAC, however. And LSAC faces a similarly severe limitation as the SuperLink: no access to the Twin Cities metro area.
Another network that does everything 'wrong', from the perspective of the "elite", is HandiHam. Not only does it include cross-band links between three bands, it has redundancy of coverage on UHF with multiple machines. The addition of simplex links in far-flung areas to increase access, and the ease of adding more simplex links, brings the network down to the level of the average ham. Anyone that can reach one point in the network has access to the entire network, and you aren't limited to calling for a particular ham on the network. I guess that the HandiHam network isn't for Serious Business like the SuperLink. To add to the horror of this easily-accessed, full-time linked network is the inclusion of EchoLink (gasp!). Surely people know that any mingling of ham radio and the internet turns the effort into something other than 'real' ham radio? That's not how things were done thirty years ago! You can't just allow hams from other countries and other parts of the U.S. to talk on the local repeater network! That's not 'real', and it has the potential for activity that isn't Very Serious Business. Obviously, if the "elite" simply engages in some smug chuckling over this abomination, and makes it known that They Do Not Approve of this Newfangled Tomfoolery, it will die off. Instead, it's expanding and could include 6M and 10M FM at some point.
The SuperLink represents the best shot from a group of hams that were once visionary thirty years ago, but are now hidebound and trapped in a model that is no longer relevant. They certainly have a right to push this model if they believe in it. There's no shortage of smug derision from these people concerning the efforts of others to move into the future, so they've kind of lost the moral high ground.
In my opinion, the SuperLink is not a viable state-wide linked network. The machines should employ hubs linked by fibre, with the UHF link machines as a redundant back-up. These UHF links should also do double duty as cross-band repeaters at the sites. The entire network, including ND, could probably boil down to five hubs. UHF (RF) links would be used to link several repeaters to a hub, and the hub would connect to other hubs using fibre. Connecting the fibre to the internet via EchoLink would allow growth at almost no cost. Simplex links to the network, on a variety of bands, would leverage the equipment of individual users as part of the whole network. It would also be easier to add new repeaters to a hub, rather than the entire network chain. This could allow six metre FM or 1.25M to be viable, since these machines would have access to the entire network. And it would be very simple to link repeaters in the southern half of the State to the network by the internet. Then, create an audio link so that non-hams can listen to the activity over the internet and you have something that is no longer for the "elite".
In terms of money, there's a case to be made for some State funding and removal of obstacles. The fibre network, for example, is something that most likely exists - or should exist - already. Access to the fibre is something that the State could pay for, and extension of fibre into areas when road construction is done is another relatively cheap way that the State could make long-term viability of the network possible. We aren't talking about the State buying repeaters, antennae, computers or feed-line. The State does have towers, though. They are used by the DNR, Highway Patrol, and MNDOT, for example. And the State could ease approval of new towers for the network, if they would be needed.
The State's interest is in having a constantly-accessible network running throughout the State for motorists, boaters, hikers, and tourists. It could be valuable in emergencies, provided that the RF links are maintained and there are redundant fibre paths for the hubs. Once the backbone is there, adding new capabilities would be trivially easy: digital access or GMRS, for example.
Do you know what would really encourage people to get their licences? Knowing that there's an infrastructure allowing them access to a wide variety of people even if they are camping, fishing, driving, or hiking in remote areas. That's much more attractive than the chance to get on a dead repeater and talk to no one over the course of several hours. Hmmm. Why is that repeater dead? Is it because it's in a rural area where only about a dozen hams have access to it, and they only get on it once a week for a net that's really boring? And those dozen hams don't get on it the rest of the time because they know that nobody else is on it? Okay, then: open it up to hundreds of communities that each have a dozen hams, and there will be someone out there to talk to. And, as we all know, activity draws activity. With more people talking, others will join in -- and even more will listen and join in at other times. The more people that get in the habit of listening, the more valuable the network is for emergencies, too. Open it up to the internet with an audio link for non-hams to listen, and they'll see the value in it. They get their licences, and the whole thing expands.
Okay, sure: it's not HF, and it's not like it was thirty years ago, and it's not Serious Business. It's what ham radio needs to be, though. The "elite" model is an ugly death over the course of the next ten years. Nobody wants to talk to the "elite", because the "elite" have nothing to say that's of value to the "non-elite". Most people don't have a time in their lives when two-way radio was relevant to them. They don't know what "CB" is, much less what ham radio is. Get over your stupid, out-dated ideas and realise that most people look at two-way radio as something like travel on horseback! Are you gonna sell people on the idea of travelling on horseback by offering them the chance to hang with the "elite", when it's glaringly obvious that this "elite" is dramatically out-of-touch with the times? Sure, it's uncomfortable, absurdly expensive, and completely impractical -- but you can be "one of the few". That's how ham radio is being "sold" today, and it's stupid.
A state-wide linked network isn't a guarantee of the hobby's future. It merely gives it a fighting chance to appeal to a generation that grew up with cell phones in a world where long-distance communication wasn't difficult nor required specialised skills. If you think that people get into ham radio to call for hours without results, then enjoy your future of dead repeaters.
There is something to be said for local communication. A state-wide linked network doesn't preclude local-coverage machines, though. I know that 'geezer logic' often devolves into a crazy world where everything must be either totally one way or totally another. But that's not reality. The SuperLink hasn't changed any of that. People still segregate into non-linked repeaters where linked options exist. It's an option.
Saturday, 21 December 2013
First-Class Jerk demoted to mere mortal
I've received several emails from hams concerning KC4TVZ, and the recent action by Ten-Ten International to remove him from their organisation. The most recent message was today from N0TW, who is an officer in 10-10.
I've held off on mentioning this for two reasons. The first is that it might provoke another round of unhinged emails from KC4TVZ, and the second is that I don't believe in kicking a guy when he's down.
It occurs to me, however, that Ten-Ten deserves credit for their action and that this chapter could stand some closure. Ignoring the expulsion (or whatever term you wish to employ) makes those two things impossible.
For me, the most galling thing about KC4TVZ's behaviour was his persistent claims that he was speaking for the majority of ham radio operators. According to him, he represented some kind of "old guard" and he was merely voicing what 'everyone' knew to be the traditions of the hobby. There were "gentleman's agreements" justifying his actions, and he was simply behaving within the confines of those "agreements". Above all was a weird subtext that his membership in Ten-Ten somehow compelled him to be a jerk, in order to be successful and respected in that organisation.
As it turns out, none of that was true. He was criticised by dozens of hams outside of the 10-10 organisation. What feeble defences of him that were made instead suggested that he was impersonated; not that his behaviour was "normal". Even the "old-timers" disparaged his conduct, while others simply shunned him. He was not some kind of beloved hero standing up for the interests of a long-suffering elite. He did not command legions of like-minded souls, who would intimidate and bully the unfortunate "newbies" that crossed his path. In truth, he was considered rude at best, and a nut at worst. Yet he still put himself forward as some kind of misunderstood evangelist for Ten-Ten International.
Ten-Ten, however, was as shocked by his behaviour as everyone else. Rather than applauding his efforts to uphold some mysterious "gentleman's agreements", they suspended him from holding any kind of office in the organisation and prohibited him from controlling nets. They were horrified that he was speaking for them, and invoking their organisation's name in his crusade to weed out the unworthy from the hobby. He was internally censured and warned that his behaviour was not acceptable.
Nothing changed on KC4TVz's end, though. He had an immense chip on his shoulder, and something to prove. It was getting to the point where KC4TVZ had become the public face of Ten-Ten International, as he lashed out in all directions. No longer proud of his public opinions, he sought to have internet remarks concerning him suppressed, and his own words taken down. There was now a full-blown conspiracy, involving the accurate quoting of his previous statements, in an effort to "judge" him. And this was completely different from his "judging" of other hams to be unworthy or not "real" hams in a way that he failed to articulate.
In the face of this response, Ten-Ten removed him from their organisation. They explained why in a public statement, and nothing about it involved shadowy conspiracies or free speech suppression. Put simply, KC4TVZ was driving away potential new members and costing them current members, as hams tried to distance themselves from his views and behaviour.
Let's be clear here: KC4TVZ did not lose his licence. He is still free to do everything that he did before in terms of expressing his views on the air and living up to vague "gentleman's agreements" that require treating people like crap. He's just a regular amateur radio operator; a mere mortal.
This was really the only thing that Ten-Ten could do to persuade the world that KC4TVZ did not speak for them. Even now, he's still pretending that his 10-10 number means something, and still associating himself with a club that wants nothing to do with him.
If telling this story can help Ten-Ten put distance between themselves and this bozo in the mind of the amateur radio community, then I'm happy to help.
This isn't about one guy that treated me poorly. It's a sign that there are lines that can be crossed, beyond the actual FCC regulations, and that a significant number of hams will respond to crossing that line. Granted, it took years to arrive at this point, and it took a large amount of internet-based documentation that could not be easily ignored. But a line was established by hams regarding their own; a 'gentleman's agreement' of a sort that KC4TVZ could not have anticipated.
Just as so many have rushed to make it clear that KC4TVZ is not "every ham", it should be mentioned that a whole lot of hams were not at all bothered by his behaviour. Nor do they particularly believe that there is a line that can be crossed, much less agree to any consequences for it. In the minds of many hams, the price of rude behaviour is people ignoring you. They simply fail to see the "big picture" and the harm it does to the general atmosphere, much less deterring new operators. With so many of these hams considering themselves to be part of some nebulous "elite", it's a bit surprising that this elite isn't held to any standard of behaviour whatsoever by their fellow "elite".
I've held off on mentioning this for two reasons. The first is that it might provoke another round of unhinged emails from KC4TVZ, and the second is that I don't believe in kicking a guy when he's down.
It occurs to me, however, that Ten-Ten deserves credit for their action and that this chapter could stand some closure. Ignoring the expulsion (or whatever term you wish to employ) makes those two things impossible.
For me, the most galling thing about KC4TVZ's behaviour was his persistent claims that he was speaking for the majority of ham radio operators. According to him, he represented some kind of "old guard" and he was merely voicing what 'everyone' knew to be the traditions of the hobby. There were "gentleman's agreements" justifying his actions, and he was simply behaving within the confines of those "agreements". Above all was a weird subtext that his membership in Ten-Ten somehow compelled him to be a jerk, in order to be successful and respected in that organisation.
As it turns out, none of that was true. He was criticised by dozens of hams outside of the 10-10 organisation. What feeble defences of him that were made instead suggested that he was impersonated; not that his behaviour was "normal". Even the "old-timers" disparaged his conduct, while others simply shunned him. He was not some kind of beloved hero standing up for the interests of a long-suffering elite. He did not command legions of like-minded souls, who would intimidate and bully the unfortunate "newbies" that crossed his path. In truth, he was considered rude at best, and a nut at worst. Yet he still put himself forward as some kind of misunderstood evangelist for Ten-Ten International.
Ten-Ten, however, was as shocked by his behaviour as everyone else. Rather than applauding his efforts to uphold some mysterious "gentleman's agreements", they suspended him from holding any kind of office in the organisation and prohibited him from controlling nets. They were horrified that he was speaking for them, and invoking their organisation's name in his crusade to weed out the unworthy from the hobby. He was internally censured and warned that his behaviour was not acceptable.
Nothing changed on KC4TVz's end, though. He had an immense chip on his shoulder, and something to prove. It was getting to the point where KC4TVZ had become the public face of Ten-Ten International, as he lashed out in all directions. No longer proud of his public opinions, he sought to have internet remarks concerning him suppressed, and his own words taken down. There was now a full-blown conspiracy, involving the accurate quoting of his previous statements, in an effort to "judge" him. And this was completely different from his "judging" of other hams to be unworthy or not "real" hams in a way that he failed to articulate.
In the face of this response, Ten-Ten removed him from their organisation. They explained why in a public statement, and nothing about it involved shadowy conspiracies or free speech suppression. Put simply, KC4TVZ was driving away potential new members and costing them current members, as hams tried to distance themselves from his views and behaviour.
Let's be clear here: KC4TVZ did not lose his licence. He is still free to do everything that he did before in terms of expressing his views on the air and living up to vague "gentleman's agreements" that require treating people like crap. He's just a regular amateur radio operator; a mere mortal.
This was really the only thing that Ten-Ten could do to persuade the world that KC4TVZ did not speak for them. Even now, he's still pretending that his 10-10 number means something, and still associating himself with a club that wants nothing to do with him.
If telling this story can help Ten-Ten put distance between themselves and this bozo in the mind of the amateur radio community, then I'm happy to help.
This isn't about one guy that treated me poorly. It's a sign that there are lines that can be crossed, beyond the actual FCC regulations, and that a significant number of hams will respond to crossing that line. Granted, it took years to arrive at this point, and it took a large amount of internet-based documentation that could not be easily ignored. But a line was established by hams regarding their own; a 'gentleman's agreement' of a sort that KC4TVZ could not have anticipated.
Just as so many have rushed to make it clear that KC4TVZ is not "every ham", it should be mentioned that a whole lot of hams were not at all bothered by his behaviour. Nor do they particularly believe that there is a line that can be crossed, much less agree to any consequences for it. In the minds of many hams, the price of rude behaviour is people ignoring you. They simply fail to see the "big picture" and the harm it does to the general atmosphere, much less deterring new operators. With so many of these hams considering themselves to be part of some nebulous "elite", it's a bit surprising that this elite isn't held to any standard of behaviour whatsoever by their fellow "elite".
Friday, 20 December 2013
Repeaters and rumours of repeaters
I'm just going to summarise some of the rumours that I've heard recently about the local repeater scene, and also add some status reminders.
The word on the street is that KG0BP (Chris) has a lot of obligations in his life at the moment, and the Arden Hills 224.940 machine might have to wait until spring before the link is restored. This would involve climbing on to his snowy roof and mounting a beam for 1.25M.
N2PSR (Matt) mentioned the new Paynesville 224.800 repeater, but I've not been able to reach it. KA0KMJ (John) also gave me a second-hand report, saying that someone told him the repeater was operational.
N0FKM (Dan) is aware of the issues involving the crippled cross-band machine at 224.500, as well as the completely dead 224.660 repeater. No promises or target dates for restoration, and I'm unwilling to prod anyone - especially with this weather.
N0BZZ (Randy) reports that the Duluth 223.940 machine is "kind of on", and potentially a power-house, but that he is unaware of any local demand for 1.25M coverage. He confirmed that it is part of the linked LSAC network, though my impression is that it's not ready for "prime time" just yet.
KG0BP (Chris) will probably wait until Spring to restore the UHF .850 HandiHam repeater, though he has interesting ideas to improve its coverage when it does return.
I have yet to hear the Ham Lake UHF .075 machine, which is supposed to be in testing.
The Becker UHF (KD0ILL) machine hasn't been linked to the Central MN network for months now, but I can still "ker-chunk" it. This is the closest link in the chain to the metro, and it's operating on a standalone basis. Also no word on if the Little Falls UHF link in that chain is operational and/or linked to the network.
What's going on with the Becker VHF machine on the central MN network? Rumours said that it would be fixed in early July 2012. I can't hit it, but N0BJN is fairly gushing over it.
The 145.470 machine is Maple Lake is on-air and linked to the HandiHam network. I can barely hear it in Plymouth, and KA0PQW has told me that the antenna for the machine is marginal. Still, I would imagine that Annandale could access it to reach the metro -- or to take advantage of the EchoLink capabilities.
W0EF VHF .760 has now gone six months without the EchoLink node logged in. Sadly, that isn't even a record for the TCFMC. When the EchoLink node is down more often that it's up, maybe it's time to drop the pretence and just admit that the club is hopelessly mired in the 1980's. And, hey, don't tell me it's about 'money'. EchoLink can run on ancient machines you can get for free, and the problem is that **THE NODE ISN'T LOGGED IN**, not that it isn't working. How much money does it cost to log in, eh?
220 MHz
W1SBD (Sam) tells of a new 1.25M machine that will be operational at some point in Maple Grove. He's been working on it for three years and is currently doing site testing to determine if any interference will be produced at the site by full power operation. Not sure if it's co-ordinated yet, though there are literally dozens of empty slots to be had on the band.The word on the street is that KG0BP (Chris) has a lot of obligations in his life at the moment, and the Arden Hills 224.940 machine might have to wait until spring before the link is restored. This would involve climbing on to his snowy roof and mounting a beam for 1.25M.
N2PSR (Matt) mentioned the new Paynesville 224.800 repeater, but I've not been able to reach it. KA0KMJ (John) also gave me a second-hand report, saying that someone told him the repeater was operational.
N0FKM (Dan) is aware of the issues involving the crippled cross-band machine at 224.500, as well as the completely dead 224.660 repeater. No promises or target dates for restoration, and I'm unwilling to prod anyone - especially with this weather.
N0BZZ (Randy) reports that the Duluth 223.940 machine is "kind of on", and potentially a power-house, but that he is unaware of any local demand for 1.25M coverage. He confirmed that it is part of the linked LSAC network, though my impression is that it's not ready for "prime time" just yet.
440 MHz
KA0KMJ (John) also confirmed that the Avon UHF machine (443.650) is operational, which is part of the linked network that includes the 220 MHz Paynesville repeater.KG0BP (Chris) will probably wait until Spring to restore the UHF .850 HandiHam repeater, though he has interesting ideas to improve its coverage when it does return.
I have yet to hear the Ham Lake UHF .075 machine, which is supposed to be in testing.
The Becker UHF (KD0ILL) machine hasn't been linked to the Central MN network for months now, but I can still "ker-chunk" it. This is the closest link in the chain to the metro, and it's operating on a standalone basis. Also no word on if the Little Falls UHF link in that chain is operational and/or linked to the network.
2 metres
N0YNT (Matt) has dangled the possibility of a cross-band VHF machine tied into the Gopher 444.425 UHF repeater. Details were sketchy, and there may be significant obstacles, but there seems to be a desire for a central cross-band capability. HandiHam's cross-band system is spread between two sites: the West Bank and Minnetonka. Absolutely no word on machine power or antenna height for the new VHF machine, but it's realistic to think that it will have EchoLink access.What's going on with the Becker VHF machine on the central MN network? Rumours said that it would be fixed in early July 2012. I can't hit it, but N0BJN is fairly gushing over it.
The 145.470 machine is Maple Lake is on-air and linked to the HandiHam network. I can barely hear it in Plymouth, and KA0PQW has told me that the antenna for the machine is marginal. Still, I would imagine that Annandale could access it to reach the metro -- or to take advantage of the EchoLink capabilities.
W0EF VHF .760 has now gone six months without the EchoLink node logged in. Sadly, that isn't even a record for the TCFMC. When the EchoLink node is down more often that it's up, maybe it's time to drop the pretence and just admit that the club is hopelessly mired in the 1980's. And, hey, don't tell me it's about 'money'. EchoLink can run on ancient machines you can get for free, and the problem is that **THE NODE ISN'T LOGGED IN**, not that it isn't working. How much money does it cost to log in, eh?
Monday, 16 December 2013
1.25M repeater in Maple Grove is a definite maybe
Per W1SBD (Sam), there could be a new FM repeater on 224.400 in a few months. It would be located right near the border of Plymouth and Maple Grove. No word on tower height or power. This would be the only 220 MHz repeater in MN on the western side of the Mississippi.
I'm excited about this because it's so close to me. This would bring the total number of repeaters on the band to five in the metro, plus the semi-functional Columbia Heights machine.
In the QSO with W1SBD, I also found that my TYT UVF9 1.25M/440 HT wasn't programmed correctly. I edited the frequencies and channel names and found that I could hit the Burnsville machine with the "rubber duck" from inside of my condo, and Sam gave me a favourable signal and audio report. If I can work a repeater 20 miles away with a simple UVF9 HT, anyone in town could do better with a simple ground-plane or exterior whip.
I'm excited about this because it's so close to me. This would bring the total number of repeaters on the band to five in the metro, plus the semi-functional Columbia Heights machine.
In the QSO with W1SBD, I also found that my TYT UVF9 1.25M/440 HT wasn't programmed correctly. I edited the frequencies and channel names and found that I could hit the Burnsville machine with the "rubber duck" from inside of my condo, and Sam gave me a favourable signal and audio report. If I can work a repeater 20 miles away with a simple UVF9 HT, anyone in town could do better with a simple ground-plane or exterior whip.
Sunday, 15 December 2013
Sunday HandiHam net devolves into idiocy
Today I turned on my radio to catch part of the HandiHam net, which was a mistake.
I wasn't there at the beginning, but apparently nobody showed to take over the net. Whatever the net control situation was, it's a glaring example of why you need a Net Control Operator. Instead of the usual organised discussion and light-hearted well-wishing, the vast majority of the net was devoted to a discussion between a guy in Colorado who knew about IRLP and an incredibly obtuse wanker in Texas who simply wanted attention. It's possible that Terry was the Net Control, and he was just shockingly inept at the job.
I didn't write down the callsigns of the people involved. The guy in Colorado was named Terry, and the incredibly obtuse wanker in Texas used the name "Operator Robert". Between them, they completely monopolised everything. Terry even made a remark at the end, 'apologising' for disrupting our normal discussion "of things like recipes". Yeah, the net is normally all about recipes, isn't it? Really, what never was explained is why it was so terribly important that one person understand what IRLP was. This isn't life-or-death knowledge. Operator Robert didn't give any indication that he was even interested in the answers. Yet, it's absolutely crucial that this one guy in Texas absorbs a tiny bit of information, almost against his will. That's what a world-wide net is for, right?
Basically what happened is that "Operator Robert" wanted to know what IRLP was about. He posed some very vague, open-ended questions, and then proceeded to ignore every answer and talk about anything but IRLP. He reminded me of Ralphie on the Simpsons who, when asked something, will respond with, "My cat's name is Mittens". He craved any kind of attention, and Terry was the perfect sucker to keep being endlessly trolled. Presented with the history of IRLP, for example, Operator Robert responded with a description of just how smart and well-respected his mentor in Texas was. He didn't even make a pathetic attempt to respond, or offer any indication that he understood. Instead, he basically told the world the name of his cat.
It was as if Operator Robert responded to every fact given to him by offering a fact of his own - with no regard if that fact was relevant to anything being discussed.
It wasn't enough that "Operator Robert" (what's up with that, anyway?) didn't do the slightest research before asking his questions. It wasn't enough that he was provided with the URL of the page with all of the information about IRLP. His response to these answers was always to be confused. Hey, Operator Robert! You have to enter the URL into a computer and look at the web page. The web page is where the answers are, not the URL.
I think the height of idiocy in the entire 40-minute fiasco was when Terry told Operator Robert where the IRLP node in Dallas was, which is in the Republic Bank Building. I have absolutely no idea why Terry thought that giving this idiot the location of the node would clear anything up. Operator Robert, however, managed to be completely baffled by even this simple bit of information. "I'm looking out my window, and I see a building with the letters KPNQ on it'. Really, Ralphie? Okay, so you're some place else, and you aren't finding that building at your current location. Yeah, that's pretty confusing there, buddy. Maybe, if you wanted to look at the building where the IRLP node is hosted, you should go to that location. The building isn't coming to you, Ralphie. Terry, taking the bait with both hands, explains that KPNQ isn't a ham callsign. It never got better than that.
It was so stupid that it was hardly surprising that one guy wandered in to the middle of a goddamn net and threw out his callsign. When Terry asked him if he was responding to the discussion, this bozo replied that he was just letting everyone know that he was monitoring.
Toward the end, some of the net "regulars" made an appearance, but it was already in the books as a disaster.
This is one of the dangers of running the HandiHam net on IRLP. Suddenly, local people in places like Texas hear activity on their repeater. Nobody explains what's going on, or that the net isn't local. On top of that, incredibly obtuse wankers like Operator Robert, who the locals probably have learned to avoid, are now given a world-wide platform. We got a "recipe", all right, but it's for disaster.
I wasn't there at the beginning, but apparently nobody showed to take over the net. Whatever the net control situation was, it's a glaring example of why you need a Net Control Operator. Instead of the usual organised discussion and light-hearted well-wishing, the vast majority of the net was devoted to a discussion between a guy in Colorado who knew about IRLP and an incredibly obtuse wanker in Texas who simply wanted attention. It's possible that Terry was the Net Control, and he was just shockingly inept at the job.
I didn't write down the callsigns of the people involved. The guy in Colorado was named Terry, and the incredibly obtuse wanker in Texas used the name "Operator Robert". Between them, they completely monopolised everything. Terry even made a remark at the end, 'apologising' for disrupting our normal discussion "of things like recipes". Yeah, the net is normally all about recipes, isn't it? Really, what never was explained is why it was so terribly important that one person understand what IRLP was. This isn't life-or-death knowledge. Operator Robert didn't give any indication that he was even interested in the answers. Yet, it's absolutely crucial that this one guy in Texas absorbs a tiny bit of information, almost against his will. That's what a world-wide net is for, right?
Basically what happened is that "Operator Robert" wanted to know what IRLP was about. He posed some very vague, open-ended questions, and then proceeded to ignore every answer and talk about anything but IRLP. He reminded me of Ralphie on the Simpsons who, when asked something, will respond with, "My cat's name is Mittens". He craved any kind of attention, and Terry was the perfect sucker to keep being endlessly trolled. Presented with the history of IRLP, for example, Operator Robert responded with a description of just how smart and well-respected his mentor in Texas was. He didn't even make a pathetic attempt to respond, or offer any indication that he understood. Instead, he basically told the world the name of his cat.
It was as if Operator Robert responded to every fact given to him by offering a fact of his own - with no regard if that fact was relevant to anything being discussed.
It wasn't enough that "Operator Robert" (what's up with that, anyway?) didn't do the slightest research before asking his questions. It wasn't enough that he was provided with the URL of the page with all of the information about IRLP. His response to these answers was always to be confused. Hey, Operator Robert! You have to enter the URL into a computer and look at the web page. The web page is where the answers are, not the URL.
I think the height of idiocy in the entire 40-minute fiasco was when Terry told Operator Robert where the IRLP node in Dallas was, which is in the Republic Bank Building. I have absolutely no idea why Terry thought that giving this idiot the location of the node would clear anything up. Operator Robert, however, managed to be completely baffled by even this simple bit of information. "I'm looking out my window, and I see a building with the letters KPNQ on it'. Really, Ralphie? Okay, so you're some place else, and you aren't finding that building at your current location. Yeah, that's pretty confusing there, buddy. Maybe, if you wanted to look at the building where the IRLP node is hosted, you should go to that location. The building isn't coming to you, Ralphie. Terry, taking the bait with both hands, explains that KPNQ isn't a ham callsign. It never got better than that.
It was so stupid that it was hardly surprising that one guy wandered in to the middle of a goddamn net and threw out his callsign. When Terry asked him if he was responding to the discussion, this bozo replied that he was just letting everyone know that he was monitoring.
Toward the end, some of the net "regulars" made an appearance, but it was already in the books as a disaster.
This is one of the dangers of running the HandiHam net on IRLP. Suddenly, local people in places like Texas hear activity on their repeater. Nobody explains what's going on, or that the net isn't local. On top of that, incredibly obtuse wankers like Operator Robert, who the locals probably have learned to avoid, are now given a world-wide platform. We got a "recipe", all right, but it's for disaster.
Saturday, 14 December 2013
1.25M activity, new repeater in the works
Last night I had a QSO on 1.25 metres, which is noteworthy because it's so infrequent to find anyone on the repeaters there. It also gave me a chance to give my new TYT TH-9000 a test.
It was after 9 PM when I heard some "ker-chunking" on the 223.940 machine. I threw out my sign, and N2PSR (Matt) came back. He had just spun together a home-made ground-plane antenna for the 1.25M band, set it up inside his home, and connected it to an HT (walkie-talkie) for a few tests. Being in Mounds View, he hardly put the Arden Hills repeater to the test at roughly 3 miles distance. Even at 1/5 of a watt he was clear, though not "full quieting" at that level. Still, for an internal antenna powered by a few watts, it was impressive.
What was more impressive to me, however, was the performance of the 223.940 machine. I was getting an S9 signal from 13 miles away in Plymouth, and Matt was on the other side of the metro. It makes me wonder just how far the .940 really reaches. Still, I was using a 3-element Yagi, and maybe that was giving me an inflated notion of the repeater's performance. After some talk, I asked Matt if he would try the Burnsville 224.500 repeater for comparison. Though I've hit it several times, I've never talked to anyone over it and had no idea how well it performs. Matt and I were both about 20 miles from the Burnsville machine, though on opposite sides of town, and he had an arrangement (interior antenna, HT) that would challenge the .540 repeater. With my ten watts and a Yagi, I expected good results.
There was quite a difference, and not in favour of the TCRC's .540 repeater. In fairness, my Yagi was still facing east, rather than south-east towards Burnsville. That made the repeater's signal about S6 instead of the usual S9 I get from the machine ID when the antenna is facing south-east. Matt made it into the machine, a 20-mile trip, though scratchy. Here I was, though, running ten watts and getting a report of weak audio from Matt. And his audio was markedly worse than what the .940 machine gave me. It wasn't just weaker, it sounded compressed and tinny. As I said, I've never actually had a contact on that machine before, so I had no idea how it sounded. Without turning my beam to face the Burnsville repeater, I guess that I can't make a hasty judgement on its coverage, but I expected a lot better.
I still haven't had a contact on the Maplewood or Mounds View machines, though I can "ker-chunk" them just fine. I don't get the Maplewood machine's CW ID at full quieting, and there's not a substantial difference in distance between Mounds View and Arden Hills. Maybe I can get Matt to make a test of those repeaters in the future, as he plans to mount his new 1.25M ground-plane outside and he's much, much closer to both of them than I am.
The only other test that I've had of the Arden Hills .940 repeater is with KG0BP, when he was on an HT inside of his home. At roughly 13 miles, he was not readable into the repeater, but he was using a "rubber duck". He could read me just fine, though. Actually, I've also spoken with KA0PQW (Matt) over the .940 when it was still set up for cross-link, and he came through very well. But he has a superior set-up, and that's to be expected.
So far, I'm really liking the 223.940 repeater. The audio is strong and clear, and the coverage hasn't disappointed me yet. Obviously, I need more contacts in different areas, with rigs of different quality, to evaluate it fairly. But I can hit it easily and I can be heard clearly 13 miles from the machine, and I know that it reaches me at full strength 20 miles away. Once the Columbia Heights 224.500 repeater gets fixed and runs cross-band to UHF again, 1.25 metres will be more than viable. And the 223.940 repeater will, at some point, run cross-band to the HandiHam network. That means two metres and 70cm coverage for anyone that can hit the .940 machine.
One thing that N2PSR told me about was the new 220 MHz repeater due to come on-line in Paynesville, MN. From the QRZ.com page of N0JBN, I found the following:
This is part of the central MN linked network that I've written about before . There was some excitement over the summer about four repeaters (Little Falls, Avon, Litchfield, and Becker) being linked via EchoLink and providing continuous coverage, along with a linked VHF machine at Becker.
The UHF machine at Becker works, and I can hit it (barely) from my (4W) mobile, but it isn't linked.
I'm completely incapable of hitting the VHF repeater at Becker, in spite of its vaunted 600' tower. If I can hit the UHF machine with 4W and a 1/4-wave mobile antenna, it seems odd that I can't reach a VHF machine from home with a 5/8-wave and 50W. Really odd. Almost like "the repeater is down" kind-of-odd. Yet the page brags about this awesome repeater, which makes me wonder how credible it is.
Don't get me wrong -- I think that it's absolutely fantastic that there's all of this activity, and it's not easy to pull a network like this together. I'm just saying that the QRZ page of N0BJN could stand a little updating before I get enthusiastic over a new 1.25M repeater.
At some point, though, I expect things to coalesce with DARC. Things will get linked, machines will be working, and there will be cross-band and wide coverage that could rival HandiHam's metro network. This would be a linked network from Little Falls to Litchfield -- and including the putative VHF repeater at Becker -- that would be accessible through the internet and operate on three bands. The addition of digital repeaters and integration with the MN 53A reflector gives it an edge over both HandiHam and LSAC. It's remarkably forward-thinking and flies in the face of those still operating under a model relevant thirty years ago.
UHF in the rural areas is a "tough sell" under the thirty-year-old model. Still, repeater slots are fairly easy to get from the MRC, commercial equipment is out there, and cheap UHF rigs are commonplace. UHF rigs weren't that easy to find thirty years ago, and the range is smaller than what you can get from two metres. But, once you abandon a model that places simplex operation as supreme, you can see the opportunity of UHF: smaller antennae on homes and vehicles, less RF power needed, less interference, and ease of creating links. Linked repeaters largely eliminate the inherent advantage of VHF, which is longer range. And, during winter in Minnesota, UHF really shines because there are no leaves to attenuate the signals. There's less opportunity for a UHF signal to bounce off tall buildings and reach otherwise-obstructed areas, but VHF doesn't bounce at all.
The 1.25M band has a lot of obstacles to overcome before it's a viable rural alternative, but it has advantages from the user side. Antennae are still pretty small, propagation is closer to that of VHF (while still bouncing less efficiently than UHF), and gear is available (though not nearly as much as two metres).
Two metres is still firmly mired in the old model of thirty years ago, and that makes it hard to take advantage of it when crafting a new approach for rural areas. Repeater slots are taken up by clubs of old men that despise EchoLink, have contempt for linking repeaters, and still see simplex as "the way to go". If you don't have a twelve-foot wide beam on a tower, then you aren't a serious ham, in their minds. And the whole idea of FM is disdained, really. A "real" ham is on HF, after all. FM is for "emergencies", like SkyWarn nets.
LSAC has decent VHF coverage, but their growth has come from UHF. Likewise with HandiHam, linking UHF simplex nodes from far-flung areas to the metro-area network.
Adding 1.25M coverage to a linked repeater network is still more of a favour to the band than it is to the network. There aren't that many hams on 220 MHz, but it will stay that way until repeaters are available for people to talk on the band. It's my hope that the availability of relatively cheap Chinese HTs that include 220 MHz will increase viability of the band in the same way that dual-band BaoFengs made UHF accessible to new hams that otherwise would have limited themselves to two metres. Normally, the promotion of 1.25M would increase the fragmentation of hams into different, incompatible bands. But the linked, cross-band nature of these linked networks results in the opposite. If someone invests in a 220 MHz rig, they can still talk to people on the other bands through the linked network. And this ties the 220 MHz user into the linked network, rather than having to compete for that ham's air time with other repeaters.
Last, the integration of EchoLink into these linked networks makes them far more attractive to newer hams than the two metre "old model" repeaters. It becomes for possible for hams from all over the world to talk to local people on the linked network, and it allows people that normally are on the air locally to talk on the network when they are out of town. What a gaggle of geezers define as 'real' ham radio is less and less relevant as viable options increase. As hams become able to reach linked networks from an HT at their lake cabin, or vacationing at State parks or private resorts -- and establish connections with other hams on the drive up or back home -- the hobby could make a critical leap from being the domain of geeks and geezers and swing toward a more stable demographic. Also, as more people find that they can use a $40 HT to talk to their family out on the water (marine VHF), as well as people hiking with GMRS, and interesting strangers across a wide area on ham radio, ham radio becomes more attractive to the average person. Not HF, which would threaten the entire "exclusivity model", but local FM instead.
It was after 9 PM when I heard some "ker-chunking" on the 223.940 machine. I threw out my sign, and N2PSR (Matt) came back. He had just spun together a home-made ground-plane antenna for the 1.25M band, set it up inside his home, and connected it to an HT (walkie-talkie) for a few tests. Being in Mounds View, he hardly put the Arden Hills repeater to the test at roughly 3 miles distance. Even at 1/5 of a watt he was clear, though not "full quieting" at that level. Still, for an internal antenna powered by a few watts, it was impressive.
What was more impressive to me, however, was the performance of the 223.940 machine. I was getting an S9 signal from 13 miles away in Plymouth, and Matt was on the other side of the metro. It makes me wonder just how far the .940 really reaches. Still, I was using a 3-element Yagi, and maybe that was giving me an inflated notion of the repeater's performance. After some talk, I asked Matt if he would try the Burnsville 224.500 repeater for comparison. Though I've hit it several times, I've never talked to anyone over it and had no idea how well it performs. Matt and I were both about 20 miles from the Burnsville machine, though on opposite sides of town, and he had an arrangement (interior antenna, HT) that would challenge the .540 repeater. With my ten watts and a Yagi, I expected good results.
There was quite a difference, and not in favour of the TCRC's .540 repeater. In fairness, my Yagi was still facing east, rather than south-east towards Burnsville. That made the repeater's signal about S6 instead of the usual S9 I get from the machine ID when the antenna is facing south-east. Matt made it into the machine, a 20-mile trip, though scratchy. Here I was, though, running ten watts and getting a report of weak audio from Matt. And his audio was markedly worse than what the .940 machine gave me. It wasn't just weaker, it sounded compressed and tinny. As I said, I've never actually had a contact on that machine before, so I had no idea how it sounded. Without turning my beam to face the Burnsville repeater, I guess that I can't make a hasty judgement on its coverage, but I expected a lot better.
I still haven't had a contact on the Maplewood or Mounds View machines, though I can "ker-chunk" them just fine. I don't get the Maplewood machine's CW ID at full quieting, and there's not a substantial difference in distance between Mounds View and Arden Hills. Maybe I can get Matt to make a test of those repeaters in the future, as he plans to mount his new 1.25M ground-plane outside and he's much, much closer to both of them than I am.
The only other test that I've had of the Arden Hills .940 repeater is with KG0BP, when he was on an HT inside of his home. At roughly 13 miles, he was not readable into the repeater, but he was using a "rubber duck". He could read me just fine, though. Actually, I've also spoken with KA0PQW (Matt) over the .940 when it was still set up for cross-link, and he came through very well. But he has a superior set-up, and that's to be expected.
So far, I'm really liking the 223.940 repeater. The audio is strong and clear, and the coverage hasn't disappointed me yet. Obviously, I need more contacts in different areas, with rigs of different quality, to evaluate it fairly. But I can hit it easily and I can be heard clearly 13 miles from the machine, and I know that it reaches me at full strength 20 miles away. Once the Columbia Heights 224.500 repeater gets fixed and runs cross-band to UHF again, 1.25 metres will be more than viable. And the 223.940 repeater will, at some point, run cross-band to the HandiHam network. That means two metres and 70cm coverage for anyone that can hit the .940 machine.
One thing that N2PSR told me about was the new 220 MHz repeater due to come on-line in Paynesville, MN. From the QRZ.com page of N0JBN, I found the following:
You found our Central Minnesota Echolink NØBJN-L on the Avon 443.650 + FM Repeater & the KCØCAP-R Litchfield 443.800 + FM Repeater.
Soon we'll be joined by the KDØILS-L Paynesville 224.800 - Repeater.
We're linking together these Central MN Repeaters to allow out of range stations to connect with us & bring more conversations to these repeaters, that were way too quiet.
This is part of the central MN linked network that I've written about before . There was some excitement over the summer about four repeaters (Little Falls, Avon, Litchfield, and Becker) being linked via EchoLink and providing continuous coverage, along with a linked VHF machine at Becker.
The UHF machine at Becker works, and I can hit it (barely) from my (4W) mobile, but it isn't linked.
I'm completely incapable of hitting the VHF repeater at Becker, in spite of its vaunted 600' tower. If I can hit the UHF machine with 4W and a 1/4-wave mobile antenna, it seems odd that I can't reach a VHF machine from home with a 5/8-wave and 50W. Really odd. Almost like "the repeater is down" kind-of-odd. Yet the page brags about this awesome repeater, which makes me wonder how credible it is.
Don't get me wrong -- I think that it's absolutely fantastic that there's all of this activity, and it's not easy to pull a network like this together. I'm just saying that the QRZ page of N0BJN could stand a little updating before I get enthusiastic over a new 1.25M repeater.
At some point, though, I expect things to coalesce with DARC. Things will get linked, machines will be working, and there will be cross-band and wide coverage that could rival HandiHam's metro network. This would be a linked network from Little Falls to Litchfield -- and including the putative VHF repeater at Becker -- that would be accessible through the internet and operate on three bands. The addition of digital repeaters and integration with the MN 53A reflector gives it an edge over both HandiHam and LSAC. It's remarkably forward-thinking and flies in the face of those still operating under a model relevant thirty years ago.
UHF in the rural areas is a "tough sell" under the thirty-year-old model. Still, repeater slots are fairly easy to get from the MRC, commercial equipment is out there, and cheap UHF rigs are commonplace. UHF rigs weren't that easy to find thirty years ago, and the range is smaller than what you can get from two metres. But, once you abandon a model that places simplex operation as supreme, you can see the opportunity of UHF: smaller antennae on homes and vehicles, less RF power needed, less interference, and ease of creating links. Linked repeaters largely eliminate the inherent advantage of VHF, which is longer range. And, during winter in Minnesota, UHF really shines because there are no leaves to attenuate the signals. There's less opportunity for a UHF signal to bounce off tall buildings and reach otherwise-obstructed areas, but VHF doesn't bounce at all.
The 1.25M band has a lot of obstacles to overcome before it's a viable rural alternative, but it has advantages from the user side. Antennae are still pretty small, propagation is closer to that of VHF (while still bouncing less efficiently than UHF), and gear is available (though not nearly as much as two metres).
Two metres is still firmly mired in the old model of thirty years ago, and that makes it hard to take advantage of it when crafting a new approach for rural areas. Repeater slots are taken up by clubs of old men that despise EchoLink, have contempt for linking repeaters, and still see simplex as "the way to go". If you don't have a twelve-foot wide beam on a tower, then you aren't a serious ham, in their minds. And the whole idea of FM is disdained, really. A "real" ham is on HF, after all. FM is for "emergencies", like SkyWarn nets.
LSAC has decent VHF coverage, but their growth has come from UHF. Likewise with HandiHam, linking UHF simplex nodes from far-flung areas to the metro-area network.
Adding 1.25M coverage to a linked repeater network is still more of a favour to the band than it is to the network. There aren't that many hams on 220 MHz, but it will stay that way until repeaters are available for people to talk on the band. It's my hope that the availability of relatively cheap Chinese HTs that include 220 MHz will increase viability of the band in the same way that dual-band BaoFengs made UHF accessible to new hams that otherwise would have limited themselves to two metres. Normally, the promotion of 1.25M would increase the fragmentation of hams into different, incompatible bands. But the linked, cross-band nature of these linked networks results in the opposite. If someone invests in a 220 MHz rig, they can still talk to people on the other bands through the linked network. And this ties the 220 MHz user into the linked network, rather than having to compete for that ham's air time with other repeaters.
Last, the integration of EchoLink into these linked networks makes them far more attractive to newer hams than the two metre "old model" repeaters. It becomes for possible for hams from all over the world to talk to local people on the linked network, and it allows people that normally are on the air locally to talk on the network when they are out of town. What a gaggle of geezers define as 'real' ham radio is less and less relevant as viable options increase. As hams become able to reach linked networks from an HT at their lake cabin, or vacationing at State parks or private resorts -- and establish connections with other hams on the drive up or back home -- the hobby could make a critical leap from being the domain of geeks and geezers and swing toward a more stable demographic. Also, as more people find that they can use a $40 HT to talk to their family out on the water (marine VHF), as well as people hiking with GMRS, and interesting strangers across a wide area on ham radio, ham radio becomes more attractive to the average person. Not HF, which would threaten the entire "exclusivity model", but local FM instead.
A new two metre morning net may be emerging
For the past two weeks, there have been a few people on the local 146.850 in the morning. They may have been there longer, but I'm not a "morning person" and things are generally wrapped up by 7:30 AM. My job is requiring me to start earlier, and I usually have at HT (walkie-talkie) scanning while I run around doing the routine things most people do before leaving for work. I first noticed activity during the snowstorm that we had recently. People were on the .850 getting traffic conditions and reporting what they found on their morning drive. While not really a "net", and barely qualifying as a "roundtable", it's not uncommon for six hams to participate during their commute at various times. There's also a guy on a 90-minute morning walk with his HT that tends to hold things together by virtue of being on there the longest. Reasonable efforts are made to "hand it over" to the next person and keep things organised as various hams drop in and out, and people tend to return each day. Conversations are usually traffic-oriented or about ham radio gear, and wander as people start or end their commute. It's a contrast to the UHF "dot one" (W0EF 444.100) morning roundtable, which is a chummy, "elite", and small group that usually doesn't allow sufficient room between each person for anyone new to jump in. More and more, it's sounding like morning coffee at the nursing home. Instead, the .850 participants seem to be vaguely familiar with each other, while keeping conversation neutral so as to avoid alienating anyone.
And there couldn't be a better choice for the "host" of this impromptu roundtable than the 146.850- (no PL), at least as far as two metres goes. The repeater is phenomenal. With a kilowatt (!) effective radiated power (ERP), a 60-mile coverage radius, and seven remote receive sites, the system was designed to allow anyone with an HT access to the entire metro area. It's hardly surprising, then, that hams with 50W mobile rigs can turn down the power while enjoying clear conversation. With my 4W PuXing as a mobile, I was able to reach the metro nearly from Pine City with a mere 1/4-wave mag-mount on my trunk due to the receive site in Scandia, MN. With receive sites scattered from Minnetonka to Roberts, WI (about ten miles from the border), and Rogers to West St. Paul, the coverage is solid. And the receive site at the Univ. of MN keeps things solid in the urban core, which is usually a challenge for some repeaters.
As I've said here several times before, activity draws activity. People come back to the .850 day after day because they know that there will be someone there to talk to, and new people scanning the repeaters hear people talking and make a mental note to tune in more often. It doesn't require stimulating conversation, especially for the short commute times. It just takes people to reliably be there, and to actually talk. The excellent coverage of the repeater just allows more people from more areas to join in.
Unfortunately for me, things are all dried up by the time I get in my car at 8:30 AM. Sometimes the "dot one" is still going by then, but mostly it's dead. If I get one person to come back to my sign over the course of a week, I consider it "good". This week I ran into N0YNT (Matt) on the U of M's 444.425+ (114.8) machine. I was just about to give up, after throwing out my callsign on five different repeaters without luck, when he came back. He also has a long commute (though soon to end), and also expressed disappointment at the silence on the local repeaters.
Having a radio in your car is only fun as long as there is someone else out there to talk to - or, at the very least, to listen to. We have the infrastructure. What we lack are the actual hams to populate that infrastructure. Things like the activity on the .850 encourages people to turn their ham radios on, instead of listening to music, and it increases the propensity for those hams to return to the same repeater. Hopefully, it will also make those people more inclined to turn their radios on at other times, and to actually come back to people throwing out their signs.
And there couldn't be a better choice for the "host" of this impromptu roundtable than the 146.850- (no PL), at least as far as two metres goes. The repeater is phenomenal. With a kilowatt (!) effective radiated power (ERP), a 60-mile coverage radius, and seven remote receive sites, the system was designed to allow anyone with an HT access to the entire metro area. It's hardly surprising, then, that hams with 50W mobile rigs can turn down the power while enjoying clear conversation. With my 4W PuXing as a mobile, I was able to reach the metro nearly from Pine City with a mere 1/4-wave mag-mount on my trunk due to the receive site in Scandia, MN. With receive sites scattered from Minnetonka to Roberts, WI (about ten miles from the border), and Rogers to West St. Paul, the coverage is solid. And the receive site at the Univ. of MN keeps things solid in the urban core, which is usually a challenge for some repeaters.
As I've said here several times before, activity draws activity. People come back to the .850 day after day because they know that there will be someone there to talk to, and new people scanning the repeaters hear people talking and make a mental note to tune in more often. It doesn't require stimulating conversation, especially for the short commute times. It just takes people to reliably be there, and to actually talk. The excellent coverage of the repeater just allows more people from more areas to join in.
Unfortunately for me, things are all dried up by the time I get in my car at 8:30 AM. Sometimes the "dot one" is still going by then, but mostly it's dead. If I get one person to come back to my sign over the course of a week, I consider it "good". This week I ran into N0YNT (Matt) on the U of M's 444.425+ (114.8) machine. I was just about to give up, after throwing out my callsign on five different repeaters without luck, when he came back. He also has a long commute (though soon to end), and also expressed disappointment at the silence on the local repeaters.
Having a radio in your car is only fun as long as there is someone else out there to talk to - or, at the very least, to listen to. We have the infrastructure. What we lack are the actual hams to populate that infrastructure. Things like the activity on the .850 encourages people to turn their ham radios on, instead of listening to music, and it increases the propensity for those hams to return to the same repeater. Hopefully, it will also make those people more inclined to turn their radios on at other times, and to actually come back to people throwing out their signs.
Monday, 9 December 2013
Subzero weather chills my radio activity
Being a ham radio operator in a condo is less than ideal, but it can be made to work if you have realistic expectations. I'm really lucky to have a 12-foot balcony that I can mount various antennae on, but I don't have any way to get coaxial cable through the wall. This means that I have to leave my sliding glass door cracked open to allow the cable through. I also have to go outside to switch the antenna on the magnetic mount, and when the wind chills are 10 or 15 below zero that is not appealing. Aside from shovelling the snow away from the mount so that I can approach it, unscrewing the current antenna from the mount and screwing in another is not at all easy with gloves on. That means no 10 metre activity, and it also means that I'm not messing around with putting the longer (and better) whips up after dark when they can't be seen.
With things this cold, I'm using my exterior antenna options sparingly. I'm leaving my 12-inch dual band Nagoya whip in the mount, and I'm leaving my 1.25M Yagi set up on the tripod. The Nagoya is hooked to a VHF PuXing PX-777 in the living room, which lets me get on the local repeaters just fine but doesn't allow me to spend any time on the more distant machines. If I'm going to have the door open for that cable to come through, I might as well let the 1.25M beam's cable in at the same time. That isn't too hard to set up, and I can get on two metres and 1.25M fairly regularly. Of course, I still have my UHF setup in the "home office" that allows me to get on the big local UHF repeaters and on GMRS.
After a few hours, though, it gets a bit chilly leaving the balcony door cracked open. And the air gets really dry because what humidity remains in the air is all escaping outside. I also worry about flexing the coax when it gets so cold, and most week-nights I've been just leaving it disconnected and contending with the low activity on UHF and GMRS.
Mobile use isn't much better. I've only got a fifteen-minute commute, and I have to pull the HT (PX-888K) out of the car when I get to work because it gets too cold for it. That also means setting it back up when I get off work, and taking it apart when I get home. And setting it back up when I leave for work. All of the cables are stiff from the cold: the power cable from the "battery eliminator", the cable for the speaker mic, and the coax from the trunk-lip mounted antenna. I'm considering just using a battery instead of the "eliminator", and leaving the speaker mic attached when I bring the radio inside. The next step would be to add a right-angle adapter to the coaxial cable so that it doesn't have to flex to go into the HT. Still, that's a lot of messing around for a total of 30 minutes on the air per day, especially considering how dead things are most of the time. And forget about swapping antennae in this cold; it's a bare-hand job. My 1/4-wave whip will just have to do.
FM activity seems to be considerably down since the Thanksgiving weekend, and I'm not sure why. Maybe people are taking their mobiles out for the winter. Maybe they have better things to do than talk on the radio. In any case, it makes going through these routines less compelling for me. When I come home from work and spend fifteen minutes throwing my sign out for nothing, I'll have second thoughts about doing it again the next night. And this just has a snowball effect on activity across the board, because I'm not spending time on the air when other people are looking for activity.
Now that the lakes are freezing, I'm getting a little more excited about what I call "ice radio". Lakes are nice, flat, public spaces where you can set up long-wire antennae, and have a pretty good RF ground if you can drill a hole in the ice. Nobody cares much about what goes on out on the ice. The only problem is getting a horizontal antenna high enough to work well without trees, but it's not impossible to find trees on shore - minus all of the leaves.
With things this cold, I'm using my exterior antenna options sparingly. I'm leaving my 12-inch dual band Nagoya whip in the mount, and I'm leaving my 1.25M Yagi set up on the tripod. The Nagoya is hooked to a VHF PuXing PX-777 in the living room, which lets me get on the local repeaters just fine but doesn't allow me to spend any time on the more distant machines. If I'm going to have the door open for that cable to come through, I might as well let the 1.25M beam's cable in at the same time. That isn't too hard to set up, and I can get on two metres and 1.25M fairly regularly. Of course, I still have my UHF setup in the "home office" that allows me to get on the big local UHF repeaters and on GMRS.
After a few hours, though, it gets a bit chilly leaving the balcony door cracked open. And the air gets really dry because what humidity remains in the air is all escaping outside. I also worry about flexing the coax when it gets so cold, and most week-nights I've been just leaving it disconnected and contending with the low activity on UHF and GMRS.
Mobile use isn't much better. I've only got a fifteen-minute commute, and I have to pull the HT (PX-888K) out of the car when I get to work because it gets too cold for it. That also means setting it back up when I get off work, and taking it apart when I get home. And setting it back up when I leave for work. All of the cables are stiff from the cold: the power cable from the "battery eliminator", the cable for the speaker mic, and the coax from the trunk-lip mounted antenna. I'm considering just using a battery instead of the "eliminator", and leaving the speaker mic attached when I bring the radio inside. The next step would be to add a right-angle adapter to the coaxial cable so that it doesn't have to flex to go into the HT. Still, that's a lot of messing around for a total of 30 minutes on the air per day, especially considering how dead things are most of the time. And forget about swapping antennae in this cold; it's a bare-hand job. My 1/4-wave whip will just have to do.
FM activity seems to be considerably down since the Thanksgiving weekend, and I'm not sure why. Maybe people are taking their mobiles out for the winter. Maybe they have better things to do than talk on the radio. In any case, it makes going through these routines less compelling for me. When I come home from work and spend fifteen minutes throwing my sign out for nothing, I'll have second thoughts about doing it again the next night. And this just has a snowball effect on activity across the board, because I'm not spending time on the air when other people are looking for activity.
Now that the lakes are freezing, I'm getting a little more excited about what I call "ice radio". Lakes are nice, flat, public spaces where you can set up long-wire antennae, and have a pretty good RF ground if you can drill a hole in the ice. Nobody cares much about what goes on out on the ice. The only problem is getting a horizontal antenna high enough to work well without trees, but it's not impossible to find trees on shore - minus all of the leaves.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
New PuXing dual-band HT: PX-UV973
PuXing has been a bit slow in rolling out new radios, while Baofeng and Wouxun seem to have a new one every month. PuXing was the first of the Chinese HTs to get FCC certification, before the FCC stalled approval of these radios in order to favour the Japanese manufacturers in the switch to narrow-band commercial use. The monoband PX-777 seems almost quaint now, and it's not competitive with the dual-band BaoFeng offerings in terms of price. The standard dual-band option from PuXing, the PX-888K, is almost twice the price of a new dual-band BaoFeng UV-5R.
Today I saw the new PuXing PX-UV973 listed on Amazon. It's $80, which is about what you can get the "old" PX-888K for now. It looks exactly like the older PX-777, except that it has a "A/B" button for the dual-receive function, and there is no LED on the top to indicate that the radio is transmitting or receiving a signal..
It looks different than the PX-888K, and it does a few things that the 888K can't do. First off, and the biggest improvement, is the ability to do cross-band repeat and duplex. The next is "self-setting CTCSS", which is interesting. Last is the inclusion of three bandwidth settings: 25, 20, and 12.5 kHz. Let's explore these differences.
Otherwise, if one of my BaoFengs ever fail, I'll probably get this new PuXing. But if you are looking for a good first HT, $80 is not a lot of money for a radio like the PX-UV973. While you can buy a BaoFeng for less money, you should consider these things:
Either way, it's clear that all of the radio manufacturers are now improving their radios and adding features. The "old" radios are not obsolete, but you can get more radio for the money by waiting for the next model. The best advice is to buy something cheap to get you on the air right away, and that you won't regret buying if you find out that the hobby isn't for you. And you can upgrade the next year, if you find out that it's interesting enough.
Today I saw the new PuXing PX-UV973 listed on Amazon. It's $80, which is about what you can get the "old" PX-888K for now. It looks exactly like the older PX-777, except that it has a "A/B" button for the dual-receive function, and there is no LED on the top to indicate that the radio is transmitting or receiving a signal..
It looks different than the PX-888K, and it does a few things that the 888K can't do. First off, and the biggest improvement, is the ability to do cross-band repeat and duplex. The next is "self-setting CTCSS", which is interesting. Last is the inclusion of three bandwidth settings: 25, 20, and 12.5 kHz. Let's explore these differences.
- Cross-band repeat and duplex: Let's say that you are having a discussion on UHF, but another one of your friends only has two metres on their radio. You can re-transmit your two meter friend's signal on UHF, while still being able to talk to and hear the people on UHF. And you can re-transmit the UHF conversation to the guy on two metres. It's basically a portable repeater, though one with very little power. There's a Wouxun that does this, too. The radio gets hot pretty quickly and the battery wears down fast because it's transmitting all of the time. The best use of the duplex feature is for getting into satellite communication. Satellites listen on one band, and transmit on the other. With this radio, and the use of an earphone, you can talk on the satellite's input (uplink) while listening to the satellite's output (downlink). Only the SO-50 and the new SO-73 have FM capability. Since there isn't any way to control the radio with a computer, this is less than optimum though. Due to the Doppler Effect, you have to constantly change frequency (on both TX and RX) as the satellite passes, and this is commonly done through a computer that calculates the correct frequency on the fly. Still, it can be done without a computer by using a few channel presets.
- Self-setting CTCSS: I don't really know what this is, but I will guess that it reads the CTCSS (PL tone) of someone that's transmitting and sets your (transmitting) PL tone accordingly. Suppose that you are on a road trip with your HT set up as a mobile and you scan around the band for signs of activity. You aren't familiar with the local repeater, and you don't know the proper tone to use to access it. If you hear someone talking on the repeater, though, the radio will figure out the PL tone that person is using - which is obviously the correct tone, because you are hearing them through the repeater - and set your radio to transmit using that tone. Again, I'm just guessing. Obviously, you need the correct offset, too, but that's a coin flip. It's either up by the standard or down by the standard, and that standard depends on the band (0.600 MHz for VHF, 5.0 MHz for UHF). The thing that I would like to know is if it also "helpfully" changes the receiving PL tone, because this would mean (on most repeaters) that you couldn't hear anyone. And, obviously, this is only helpful at all if someone is talking on the repeater. If not, and you want to throw out your callsign, you won't be heard until you figure out the proper PL tone. UPDATE: I found out from PuXing dealer K6LCS (Clint) that this feature is a standard scan for CTCSS or DCS tones on received signals.
- Three bandwidth settings: The other PuXing radios have only two bandwidth settings (25 kHz and 12.5 kHz). This is what the MN two metre band plan says: "Channelized frequencies used for FM in the 144 and 145 Mhz range are on 20 Khz steps. Above 146 Mhz, FM channelized frequencies are on 15 Khz steps". My take on this is that repeater inputs are at 20 kHz, and simplex is at 15 kHz. For UHF, it's 25 kHz. This would mean that the "wide" setting on a PuXing is not really compliant for two metre repeater use, nor for simplex. It will work, but it's not right. Using the "narrow" setting on a repeater, though, is too narrow. Your audio will be really weak. I should also note that other radios, such as the Kenwood TM-281A, are the same. The new PuXing radio will let you operate at 20kHz bandwidth ("channel spacing"), which is the correct setting for VHF repeater use. Please note that this is very different from the "step" settings for the VFO. I'm unable to find the bandwidth specs for the PX-888K. The specs for the Baofeng UV-5RE are 25/12.5 kHz, too.
Otherwise, if one of my BaoFengs ever fail, I'll probably get this new PuXing. But if you are looking for a good first HT, $80 is not a lot of money for a radio like the PX-UV973. While you can buy a BaoFeng for less money, you should consider these things:
- The BaoFeng UV-5Rs change channels from the front panel using "up" and "down" buttons. The PuXing radios have a rotary encoder on the top of the unit, which is easier to manipulate while driving.
- BaoFeng radios use a weird "inductive loading" on the antenna that optimises the radio for the "rubber duck" (the short, flexible antenna that comes with the radio), but doesn't work great with any other external antenna. This is fine if you just want to use it a "walkie-talkie", but if you want to use as a mobile or base it will perform worse than the PuXing radios.
- The 888K can be set to display both the channel name and the frequency at the same time, which is nice to know if you are on VHF or UHF. The 888K also allows for seven-character names, instead of six for the BaoFeng.
- The 888K can send and receive MSK IDs.
Either way, it's clear that all of the radio manufacturers are now improving their radios and adding features. The "old" radios are not obsolete, but you can get more radio for the money by waiting for the next model. The best advice is to buy something cheap to get you on the air right away, and that you won't regret buying if you find out that the hobby isn't for you. And you can upgrade the next year, if you find out that it's interesting enough.
MSK ANI on your HT
Incomprehensible acronyms in this post, I guess. MSK is a "modulation scheme" that sends information digitally. I don't know much about the details, but you can find more info here. ANI is "Automatic Numbering Identification", which is a way for a radio to identify itself to others. And HT is "hamspeak" for a hand-held transceiver -- what most people would call a "walkie-talkie".
There seems to be a lot of confusion over ANI, and it's something that many people find in the manuals for their Chinese HTs. The Baofengs have DTMF, 2-tone, and 5-tone. I'm not going to get into the details too much. DTMF is what phones use to send the number corresponding to keypad, and most everybody is familiar with that. For these modes, a number is sent either at the beginning or end of a transmission in the form of tones. It might be somewhat useful on commercial radios, but on ham radio it's worthless. It's just a slightly more complex "roger beep", which is good way to irritate other hams.
PuXing, TYT, and Wouxun radios have MSK in addition to DTMF. In theory, you can send your callsign in a short data burst at the end of your transmission, and it will show up on the screen of the people receiving you. In practise, it usually doesn't work that way.
My PuXing PX-777s have MSK, and they send the data burst. They don't display anything, though. I don't have a Wouxun, so I can't speak to those. In the PuXing and TYT software, you enter your callsign in the ANI settings.
Here is a screenshot of the PX-888K software where you set up the MSK callsign:
Here is the screenshot from the TYT UV-F9 software where the callsign is programmed:
I am able to send my callsign from my PuXing PX-888K to my TYT UV-F9 (and vice versa) and have it display on the receiving end. I set it up exactly as shown, and it worked right off the bat.
If you don't see "MSK" as one of the options in your "ANI" or "PTT ID" settings, then this won't work on your radio. It won't work with DTMF, 2-tone, or 5-tone. All that you can send with those are numbers, except for the letters A, B, C, and D with DTMF. I don't think that the BaoFeng software will even allow you to enter letters at all, regardless if they are those four. Most radios don't allow you to do this, or it just doesn't work. Like I said, the PuXing PX-777 will send, but not receive, a callsign. My TYT TH-9000 (1.25M) doesn't have MSK, but my TYT UV-F9 (70cm/1.25M) does.
As with most "newfangled" ham radio things, the use of ANI (whether MSK or not) brings out strong feelings in opposition. It's not the way things were done thirty years ago, so it's wrong... and get off of my lawn! I think that MSK ID is great, and I wish that it was more common. Often people mumble their callsigns, or rattle them off quickly as if you already know it. Usually, I have to ask people to repeat it or say it phonetically. Other times, I simply forget their sign during the course of the conversation.
With this digital ID setting, the other person can see your callsign displayed right after you are finished talking, throughout the conversation. There's no confusion over similar-sounding letters. Obviously, it doesn't take the place of the FCC requirements to identify yourself. It's just a convenient supplement to voice identification. It would also be nice if repeaters would use an additional MSK ID, but that isn't likely because the controllers aren't designed for that.
The MSK ID sounds like a short (one second or less) squawk at the end of your transmission. The sender can't hear it, of course, but the person receiving can. This sets the stage for all manner of irritable people to complain or simply refuse to talk to you. On the PuXing and TYT models that support the MSK ID, it can be turned off through the menu keypad, but that could be challenging while driving. You can also set which channels that you want PTT ID to be sent on through the software. So, if you find that people on a particular repeater are annoyed, you can set the radio to not send your ID on that channel.
Another issue is that those fancy, expensive non-Chinese radios can't decode MSK, so the hams using those radios won't be able to see your callsign anyway - but they will still be "exposed" to the squawk.
To avoid the inevitable controversy, I limit myself to using MSK ID on simplex. But, if I know that someone has an MSK-compatible radio, I will often turn the ANI on during the course of a conversation. Since these people are always newer hams, and don't have a knee-jerk negativity to the Chinese radios, it's a safer bet that they won't go ballistic. In fact, they generally think that it's "cool" that they can see my callsign scroll across their display, and they want to know how it's done.
Realistically, I don't expect that MSK ID will ever "catch on" because most radios can't make use of it, and there are competing digital technologies such as MDC-1200. Still, it's just another reason to pay a bit more for a PuXing PX-888K or TYT UV-F9 instead of a BaoFeng UV-5R.
There seems to be a lot of confusion over ANI, and it's something that many people find in the manuals for their Chinese HTs. The Baofengs have DTMF, 2-tone, and 5-tone. I'm not going to get into the details too much. DTMF is what phones use to send the number corresponding to keypad, and most everybody is familiar with that. For these modes, a number is sent either at the beginning or end of a transmission in the form of tones. It might be somewhat useful on commercial radios, but on ham radio it's worthless. It's just a slightly more complex "roger beep", which is good way to irritate other hams.
PuXing, TYT, and Wouxun radios have MSK in addition to DTMF. In theory, you can send your callsign in a short data burst at the end of your transmission, and it will show up on the screen of the people receiving you. In practise, it usually doesn't work that way.
My PuXing PX-777s have MSK, and they send the data burst. They don't display anything, though. I don't have a Wouxun, so I can't speak to those. In the PuXing and TYT software, you enter your callsign in the ANI settings.
Here is a screenshot of the PX-888K software where you set up the MSK callsign:
Here is the screenshot from the TYT UV-F9 software where the callsign is programmed:
I am able to send my callsign from my PuXing PX-888K to my TYT UV-F9 (and vice versa) and have it display on the receiving end. I set it up exactly as shown, and it worked right off the bat.
If you don't see "MSK" as one of the options in your "ANI" or "PTT ID" settings, then this won't work on your radio. It won't work with DTMF, 2-tone, or 5-tone. All that you can send with those are numbers, except for the letters A, B, C, and D with DTMF. I don't think that the BaoFeng software will even allow you to enter letters at all, regardless if they are those four. Most radios don't allow you to do this, or it just doesn't work. Like I said, the PuXing PX-777 will send, but not receive, a callsign. My TYT TH-9000 (1.25M) doesn't have MSK, but my TYT UV-F9 (70cm/1.25M) does.
As with most "newfangled" ham radio things, the use of ANI (whether MSK or not) brings out strong feelings in opposition. It's not the way things were done thirty years ago, so it's wrong... and get off of my lawn! I think that MSK ID is great, and I wish that it was more common. Often people mumble their callsigns, or rattle them off quickly as if you already know it. Usually, I have to ask people to repeat it or say it phonetically. Other times, I simply forget their sign during the course of the conversation.
With this digital ID setting, the other person can see your callsign displayed right after you are finished talking, throughout the conversation. There's no confusion over similar-sounding letters. Obviously, it doesn't take the place of the FCC requirements to identify yourself. It's just a convenient supplement to voice identification. It would also be nice if repeaters would use an additional MSK ID, but that isn't likely because the controllers aren't designed for that.
The MSK ID sounds like a short (one second or less) squawk at the end of your transmission. The sender can't hear it, of course, but the person receiving can. This sets the stage for all manner of irritable people to complain or simply refuse to talk to you. On the PuXing and TYT models that support the MSK ID, it can be turned off through the menu keypad, but that could be challenging while driving. You can also set which channels that you want PTT ID to be sent on through the software. So, if you find that people on a particular repeater are annoyed, you can set the radio to not send your ID on that channel.
Another issue is that those fancy, expensive non-Chinese radios can't decode MSK, so the hams using those radios won't be able to see your callsign anyway - but they will still be "exposed" to the squawk.
To avoid the inevitable controversy, I limit myself to using MSK ID on simplex. But, if I know that someone has an MSK-compatible radio, I will often turn the ANI on during the course of a conversation. Since these people are always newer hams, and don't have a knee-jerk negativity to the Chinese radios, it's a safer bet that they won't go ballistic. In fact, they generally think that it's "cool" that they can see my callsign scroll across their display, and they want to know how it's done.
Realistically, I don't expect that MSK ID will ever "catch on" because most radios can't make use of it, and there are competing digital technologies such as MDC-1200. Still, it's just another reason to pay a bit more for a PuXing PX-888K or TYT UV-F9 instead of a BaoFeng UV-5R.
Friday, 6 December 2013
Suburban UHF solution
I just wanted to post this picture of one of my antenna setups. This is what I've been using for the UHF PuXing PX-777 in my "home office" for about five months now.
This primitive arrangement lets me hit at least eight repeaters while I sit at my desk and work on the computer. Even if my HOA made me take down my tiny dual-band, mag-mounted whip on the balcony, I could still get on the air with this. So don't think that you can't participate in ham radio because you live in an apartment, townhouse, or condo and aren't allowed to have an exterior antenna.
This is, of course, a metal paint can functioning as a mediocre UHF ground-plane. I'm using a NMO magnetic mount with mere RG-58U coaxial cable, and the antenna is a Browning 1/4-wave mobile whip.
Nothing about this arrangement is "proper". The can should be about a foot in diameter (minimum) if one were to go "by the book". The cable should be at least RG-8X for UHF, and a 5/8 wave would be better choice. But it works. Sure, I have better antennae and a better radio elsewhere, but this lets me listen to the local activity and talk while I'm doing something else.
The antenna cost about $8, the mount and cable ran around $25, and the can was pulled out of the dumpster. The PX-777 is $64 at 409shop. For under a $100, you can be a ham radio operator on UHF out of any place that has a window. And there are even cheaper options.
VHF would require a larger piece of magnetic metal to act as a sufficient ground-plane: a cookie sheet, a steel shelf, the lid from a 55-gallon drum, a steel ironing board, or a refrigerator. Buy a $50 BaoFeng, a $23 Tram 1185 dual-band mag-mount, and a $2 SMA cable adapter and you're on both bands. Plus, you can put the whole thing on your car if you want company on your commute some particular day.
If you're out in a rural area with the nearest repeater 15 miles away, this might not work well for you. Odds are, there's nobody on the local repeater in that case anyway.
And, yeah, you have to take that easy written test and wait for the FCC to give you a call sign.
Just don't let the "elite" hams tell you that you've to spend hundreds on a radio and another hundred on an antenna to be "taken seriously". If you can talk to people, you'll be taken seriously, because that's a skill that many of the "elite" lack. No expensive rig is going to make you more interesting, unless all that you want to do is talk about your expensive rig. That's not much to talk about, either.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
Brazilian weirdness on HandiHam -- 10M FM?
On Thursday morning (Thanksgiving), I had my UHF HT on as I checked my email and went about my morning routine. There was a lot of activity on the .650, I noticed. First, there was a lot of "key ups" (where someone presses the mic button in but doesn't say anything), as if someone was steadily "ker-chunking" the machine. That's not too weird, but it usually doesn't go on for long. Every minute or so there was a hit along with a "roger beep", for about 15 minutes. Then the Portuguese started. Two guys were having a QSO on the local repeater in Portuguese. One of the callsigns was PU7MTH, which obviously isn't local. It went on for about ten minutes, then went back to irregular "key ups" with beeps and PU7MTH asking if anyone was there. KA0PQW (Matt) came on, but the Brazilian didn't come back to him. Matt commented aloud during a burst of beeps that "someone must've hooked up a tail-tracer", whatever that means.
It's not unusual to get international contacts on the local HandiHam repeater network. I've talked to a guy from Japan myself on the .450 machine. They come in through EchoLink, and it's one of the benefits of having a popular EchoLink conference server here.
But this was different. People from other countries are always are talking to locals, not to people in other countries. Why would two people in Brazil decide to use an EchoLink conference server in Minneapolis for a QSO? And who has 'roger beeps" on their computer's EchoLink? And what was with all of the "key ups"? It was mysterious, and it stayed on my mind.
As I have mentioned before, there are plans to set up a 10 meter FM repeater linked to the local HandiHam network. With the 10M band so active and open recently, Brazil wouldn't be excluded from reaching here. On Saturday, I was listening to 10M FM -- not transmitting, because that isn't allowed for Techs -- and I heard several Brazilian stations. They were even on the 29.660 frequency that the putative 10M HandiHam repeater would be on.
It suddenly occurred to me that I might have been hearing 10M FM traffic on Thanksgiving! I put my theory to the test by tuning my HF radio to 29.660 FM, and threw out my sign on the VHF .450 machine. It wasn't repeated over 10M. Still, it was possible that the receiver of the local 10M repeater was linked, but not the transmitter. I listened to see if any of the activity on the 10M FM frequency was being repeated on the HandiHam network. It wasn't.
Not knowing when to quit, I emailed N0BVE (Don). He's the guy who is working on the 10M/6M project, and who knows everything about the technical aspects of the network. The bottom line is that he confirmed, in no uncertain terms, that the 10 meter repeater is not connected, and that he's still looking for a transmitter site. Nice of him to get back to me so quickly, and he was quite polite about it, too.
No mysterious Brazilians have shown up since Thursday, so I guess that nobody knows what was going on.
It does make me wonder how this 10M FM repeater will work when the band "opens up". The local network could be dominated for hours by non-local activity during the day. I suppose that could be exciting, and there are other repeaters in town to use for local conversations. But the HandiHam network is the prime cross-band option in town. I mean, it's pretty much the only one. Still, having too much activity on a repeater would be a fun problem to have, and this solar cycle isn't going to last forever.
UPDATE: A recent conversation with KA0PQW (Matt) revealed that the situation was caused by a Brazilian repeater linking to the HandiHam network via EchoLink, along with a "tail-tracer" (or "tail-chaser"?) being used on the Brazilian end. It was ultimately shut down on the HandiHam end. Mystery solved.
Thanks to Matt and Don for not only solving this problem, but explaining it to me.
It's not unusual to get international contacts on the local HandiHam repeater network. I've talked to a guy from Japan myself on the .450 machine. They come in through EchoLink, and it's one of the benefits of having a popular EchoLink conference server here.
But this was different. People from other countries are always are talking to locals, not to people in other countries. Why would two people in Brazil decide to use an EchoLink conference server in Minneapolis for a QSO? And who has 'roger beeps" on their computer's EchoLink? And what was with all of the "key ups"? It was mysterious, and it stayed on my mind.
As I have mentioned before, there are plans to set up a 10 meter FM repeater linked to the local HandiHam network. With the 10M band so active and open recently, Brazil wouldn't be excluded from reaching here. On Saturday, I was listening to 10M FM -- not transmitting, because that isn't allowed for Techs -- and I heard several Brazilian stations. They were even on the 29.660 frequency that the putative 10M HandiHam repeater would be on.
It suddenly occurred to me that I might have been hearing 10M FM traffic on Thanksgiving! I put my theory to the test by tuning my HF radio to 29.660 FM, and threw out my sign on the VHF .450 machine. It wasn't repeated over 10M. Still, it was possible that the receiver of the local 10M repeater was linked, but not the transmitter. I listened to see if any of the activity on the 10M FM frequency was being repeated on the HandiHam network. It wasn't.
Not knowing when to quit, I emailed N0BVE (Don). He's the guy who is working on the 10M/6M project, and who knows everything about the technical aspects of the network. The bottom line is that he confirmed, in no uncertain terms, that the 10 meter repeater is not connected, and that he's still looking for a transmitter site. Nice of him to get back to me so quickly, and he was quite polite about it, too.
No mysterious Brazilians have shown up since Thursday, so I guess that nobody knows what was going on.
It does make me wonder how this 10M FM repeater will work when the band "opens up". The local network could be dominated for hours by non-local activity during the day. I suppose that could be exciting, and there are other repeaters in town to use for local conversations. But the HandiHam network is the prime cross-band option in town. I mean, it's pretty much the only one. Still, having too much activity on a repeater would be a fun problem to have, and this solar cycle isn't going to last forever.
UPDATE: A recent conversation with KA0PQW (Matt) revealed that the situation was caused by a Brazilian repeater linking to the HandiHam network via EchoLink, along with a "tail-tracer" (or "tail-chaser"?) being used on the Brazilian end. It was ultimately shut down on the HandiHam end. Mystery solved.
Thanks to Matt and Don for not only solving this problem, but explaining it to me.
Friday, 29 November 2013
1.25M Columbia Heights repeaters
While there are already four operational 222 MHz repeaters in town, they are all on the eastern side of the metro: Arden Hills, Maplewood, Burnsville, and Mounds View.
Two repeaters are, however, located in Columbia Heights: 224.660+ (114.8) and 224.500- (114.8). These two repeaters aren't really operational, though.
Both of these machines have excellent sites on high ground that would allow very good metro-area coverage, should they be restored. This isn't idle speculation, because there are also two UHF machines at that site with "very good metro-area coverage": 444.750+ (114.8) and 444.550+ (no tone).
The 224.660 is a normal repeater, but the 224.500 is ostensibly cross-band to UHF through the 444.750 machine. The RepeaterBook listing is incorrect. With the HandiHam cross-band to the Arden Hills 1.25M temporarily shut down, it would be really nice to have the 224.500 repeater working so that there would be cross-band functionality in town.
The odd thing is that the 224.500 is working, after a fashion. Any transmission on the UHF 444.750 repeater is repeated cross-band to 220 MHz, but nothing going in to the 224.500 is repeated on either band. The 224.500 can actually transmit, but it's completely deaf to any input on the 1.25M band.
If you would like to get a taste of the potential that the 224.500 offers, just listen to the frequency as you transmit on the 444.750 UHF machine. I think that you'll be very surprised at the clear and strong signal that is re-transmitted on the 1.25M band. From out here in Plymouth, the .500 is easily the strongest signal of all those in the metro on the 1.25M band.
This odd situation made me suspect that the information for the 224.500 repeater might be wrong. After all, the listing already is incorrect as to which machine is cross-band. So I contacted the trustee for the repeater, Dan (N0FKM). It might be that the offset shift is listed wrong or the PL tone is different than what is shown.
Sadly, Dan didn't confirm that this was the case. He said that there have been issues with intermod from the public safety machines also located at the site. He also, quite reasonably, mentioned that he didn't have a great deal of free time to tackle this problem in the immediate future.
At some point, I believe that the .500 repeater will be restored. It's cross-band capability will make it second only to the HandiHam .940 in metro-area 1.25M popularity, and will probably increase use of the UHF .750 machine, which has languished in the plethora of UHF options here.
Most communities don't even have one 220 MHz repeater. The entire State of Iowa, for example, has only three working repeaters for the band. South Dakota has only one, and North Dakota none. Wisconsin has only three, and they are all clustered in the eastern part of the State in the Milwaukee area. We're really fortunate to have four working repeaters in the metro, even if they aren't cross-band at the moment.
Two repeaters are, however, located in Columbia Heights: 224.660+ (114.8) and 224.500- (114.8). These two repeaters aren't really operational, though.
Both of these machines have excellent sites on high ground that would allow very good metro-area coverage, should they be restored. This isn't idle speculation, because there are also two UHF machines at that site with "very good metro-area coverage": 444.750+ (114.8) and 444.550+ (no tone).
The 224.660 is a normal repeater, but the 224.500 is ostensibly cross-band to UHF through the 444.750 machine. The RepeaterBook listing is incorrect. With the HandiHam cross-band to the Arden Hills 1.25M temporarily shut down, it would be really nice to have the 224.500 repeater working so that there would be cross-band functionality in town.
The odd thing is that the 224.500 is working, after a fashion. Any transmission on the UHF 444.750 repeater is repeated cross-band to 220 MHz, but nothing going in to the 224.500 is repeated on either band. The 224.500 can actually transmit, but it's completely deaf to any input on the 1.25M band.
If you would like to get a taste of the potential that the 224.500 offers, just listen to the frequency as you transmit on the 444.750 UHF machine. I think that you'll be very surprised at the clear and strong signal that is re-transmitted on the 1.25M band. From out here in Plymouth, the .500 is easily the strongest signal of all those in the metro on the 1.25M band.
This odd situation made me suspect that the information for the 224.500 repeater might be wrong. After all, the listing already is incorrect as to which machine is cross-band. So I contacted the trustee for the repeater, Dan (N0FKM). It might be that the offset shift is listed wrong or the PL tone is different than what is shown.
Sadly, Dan didn't confirm that this was the case. He said that there have been issues with intermod from the public safety machines also located at the site. He also, quite reasonably, mentioned that he didn't have a great deal of free time to tackle this problem in the immediate future.
At some point, I believe that the .500 repeater will be restored. It's cross-band capability will make it second only to the HandiHam .940 in metro-area 1.25M popularity, and will probably increase use of the UHF .750 machine, which has languished in the plethora of UHF options here.
Most communities don't even have one 220 MHz repeater. The entire State of Iowa, for example, has only three working repeaters for the band. South Dakota has only one, and North Dakota none. Wisconsin has only three, and they are all clustered in the eastern part of the State in the Milwaukee area. We're really fortunate to have four working repeaters in the metro, even if they aren't cross-band at the moment.
The case for 1.25 metres
Promoting the use of 220 MHz (1.25 meters) is an uphill task. Many would say that ham radio doesn't need another band to fragment the already limited community into. Others point to a lack of repeaters and stable population on the band. Both points are valid.
As for the first issue, the obvious solution is cross-band repeaters. If I can talk to people on two metre FM and 1.25 metre FM, I'm not giving anything up by using a 1.25M radio.
The second point is a tougher nut to crack, but not insoluble. Two meters has a plethora of repeaters available. In many metro areas, there aren't available slots for new VHF repeaters, even though a substantial number of "paper repeaters" exist. 220 MHz offers a wide-open opportunity for anyone to establish a repeater, digital or analogue. Equipment is tougher to come by, but two mobiles can be used side-by side for far less than a commercial machine. The issue is the duplexer, which allows the two radios to share the same antenna. But there's no law saying that you need a duplexer. The receive site and the transmit site can be completely separate, and potentially linked by fibre. This is hardly a daunting financial, technical or logistical challenge for most clubs
Remember, UHF faced the same scepticism -- and still does in many quarters. What changed things was the surge in dual-band radio availability, including the cheap Chinese hand-helds that so many love to hate. Also, the lack of VHF slots drove many to consider setting up UHF repeaters. The TYT and BaoFeng 220 MHz HTs are still new, but easily within the price range of virtually all hams.
Having just one cross-band repeater option available in a metro area could easily tip the scales and provide the incentive for many Technicians to give 1.25M a try.
The advantage of 220 MHz is in the propagation characteristics. The band has the best of both VHF and UHF. It carries nearly as well as two metres in a suburban/urban environment, yet still bounces off buildings like UHF. And it doesn't suffer nearly as much from "green leaf attenuation" as UHF does, while working beyond "line of sight". In a sensible world, 1.25M would be the choice for metropolitan environments, while VHF would be for rural and UHF for local coverage. Antennae for the 1.25M band are also much smaller than their VHF counterparts. People that couldn't (or wouldn't) set up a two metre beam can easily set up a 1.25M Yagi or log periodic that would be smaller than a standard TV antenna. Given the penetration characteristics, indoor beams are more than feasible.
Now, just because 1.25M offers potential, that doesn't mean that potential will be exploited. In many cases, the people that run repeaters are mired in the paradigm of the past, and would not consider providing 1.25M coverage. Many scoff at the idea of cross-band repeaters on principle. These people may make a grand display of wringing their hands when the 1.25 band is handed over to commercial interests for digital use, but much of the blame for that eventuality will really be on their heads.
Perhaps radio clubs could be persuaded to make use of 1.25M for auxiliary links between repeaters. It certainly isn't crowded, and it could advance the cause of linked repeaters in general.
If you are a ham, and care about preserving the band, it's up to you to take the relatively painless steps to bring 1.25M into viability.
As for the first issue, the obvious solution is cross-band repeaters. If I can talk to people on two metre FM and 1.25 metre FM, I'm not giving anything up by using a 1.25M radio.
The second point is a tougher nut to crack, but not insoluble. Two meters has a plethora of repeaters available. In many metro areas, there aren't available slots for new VHF repeaters, even though a substantial number of "paper repeaters" exist. 220 MHz offers a wide-open opportunity for anyone to establish a repeater, digital or analogue. Equipment is tougher to come by, but two mobiles can be used side-by side for far less than a commercial machine. The issue is the duplexer, which allows the two radios to share the same antenna. But there's no law saying that you need a duplexer. The receive site and the transmit site can be completely separate, and potentially linked by fibre. This is hardly a daunting financial, technical or logistical challenge for most clubs
Remember, UHF faced the same scepticism -- and still does in many quarters. What changed things was the surge in dual-band radio availability, including the cheap Chinese hand-helds that so many love to hate. Also, the lack of VHF slots drove many to consider setting up UHF repeaters. The TYT and BaoFeng 220 MHz HTs are still new, but easily within the price range of virtually all hams.
Having just one cross-band repeater option available in a metro area could easily tip the scales and provide the incentive for many Technicians to give 1.25M a try.
The advantage of 220 MHz is in the propagation characteristics. The band has the best of both VHF and UHF. It carries nearly as well as two metres in a suburban/urban environment, yet still bounces off buildings like UHF. And it doesn't suffer nearly as much from "green leaf attenuation" as UHF does, while working beyond "line of sight". In a sensible world, 1.25M would be the choice for metropolitan environments, while VHF would be for rural and UHF for local coverage. Antennae for the 1.25M band are also much smaller than their VHF counterparts. People that couldn't (or wouldn't) set up a two metre beam can easily set up a 1.25M Yagi or log periodic that would be smaller than a standard TV antenna. Given the penetration characteristics, indoor beams are more than feasible.
Now, just because 1.25M offers potential, that doesn't mean that potential will be exploited. In many cases, the people that run repeaters are mired in the paradigm of the past, and would not consider providing 1.25M coverage. Many scoff at the idea of cross-band repeaters on principle. These people may make a grand display of wringing their hands when the 1.25 band is handed over to commercial interests for digital use, but much of the blame for that eventuality will really be on their heads.
Perhaps radio clubs could be persuaded to make use of 1.25M for auxiliary links between repeaters. It certainly isn't crowded, and it could advance the cause of linked repeaters in general.
If you are a ham, and care about preserving the band, it's up to you to take the relatively painless steps to bring 1.25M into viability.
- Get a radio for the band. You can't use it if you can't access it.
- Talk the band up on nets. Mention the need for a repeater for the band in your area. Someone's ego is likely to be stimulated enough to consider establishing a machine.
- Look at the digital potential for the band. Digital voice is wide open as an option. This might appeal to some, so mention it to your fellow hams. Alinco makes a rig with digital voice options for the band.
- Even if you are only on simplex, get on the band once a week. If other people hear you, it will help to convince them that there's real activity to support a repeater. Mention the channel that you are using when on nets.
- Talk to the people that operate repeaters in your area, and ask them about how challenging setting up a cross-band repeater would be. They may dismiss the idea out-of-hand, but seriously consider it later.
Thursday, 28 November 2013
LSAC update
Even though it's winter "up north" and a pretty uncomfortable time to be climbing towers, the LSAC repeater network is still being restored. N0BZZ (Randy) emailed me with the information that he's checking on the Bayfield, WI 146.700 repeater to make sure it's ready for the John Beargrease Sled Run. This VHF machine is located in the northern reaches of Wisconsin where the UHF WINET fears to tread.
The VHF 145.410 repeater in Duluth was also confirmed by N0BZZ to be up and running. This is sited on a 500' (wow!) tower. I suspect that the rated 30 mile coverage radius might be conservative, so if you are up near Duluth, submit a propagation report for this machine. It isn't linked to LSAC yet, because the priority is to restore the UHF link to the Bayfield repeater.
My impression, from N0BZZ's updates, is that Randy (N0BZZ) and Pat (KB0QYC) are concentrating on restoring and upgrading the repeaters themselves before working on the links between them. This is pretty smart, and it establishes a local user base for each unlinked machine that will only grow once it is linked to the other machines in the network. N0BZZ has tentatively given early Spring as a possible date for the north and south ends of the network to be linked together, with Summer being projected for restoration of the links between the more far-flung elements. It's a heck of a lot of work for just two guys, especially considering that they are also maintaining repeaters for non-LSAC radio clubs, such as the VHF machine in Mahtowa.
With this ambitious agenda in mind, I haven't asked about the restoration of the old "LSAC II" network, which is a scattering of UHF, VHF, SHF, and 6 meter repeaters that have been operating on a standalone basis since the link between them was lost. 6 meter FM is a very good (Technician-accessible) option for these relatively remote areas, even though the numbers of people with gear (especially mobile) for the band are not high. Still, the availability of cross-band use and the (eventual) introduction of a 6 meter FM repeater to the HandiHam network may promote more activity. But that's all down the road and only dimly visible as a potential future at the moment.
I think that more people are figuring out the consequences of the current amateur radio demographics. The numbers of licensees have been held relatively steady by the introduction of newer people who really aren't getting on the air much - many of which are "preppers" that are not interested in the long-term health of the hobby or the community. With fewer people actually on the air, simplex becomes something that has to be "scheduled", and the challenge is to find those fewer numbers. Repeaters are the "watering holes" that people congregate at and gravitate towards, and linked repeaters (especially cross-band) increase the likelihood of finding both familiar people and interesting new ones. The other challenge is to get people on the air in more situations, both for them to establish ties to the community and for the community to have an active on-air population.
LSAC helps with both of these challenges. It links fragmented, smaller communities that don't have enough active people on-air at any given time to make turning on your radio look attractive to other similar communities to form a larger "pool". It also brings people together on different bands who would otherwise be unaware of each other. And it lets people stay connected to their local communities when they travel outside of it.
When the network is restored, it will be possible for a ham travelling on 35W "up north" to talk to another ham at his lake cabin near Brainerd, and let a hiker on the Superior National Trail join in. Someone on their way home from work in Pine City could talk with another ham out on Lake Superior or camping at Itasca State Park. It makes bringing a radio to those more remote locations attractive, and it makes turning on your radio at home more inviting, too. It doesn't take too many incidents of a new ham being greeted by silence when they throw out their sign to discourage them from turning on their radio in the future. There are still those who would scoff, "Good riddance!" at that situation, but more hams are realising that the crowded repeaters of the 1980's are not coming back, and that something has to change.
Linked repeaters aren't a guarantee of future growth, but they are a hell of a lot better gamble than betting on widespread simplex activity. Every time that someone packs an HT on their camping trip, or brings one up to the cabin, or turns off their CD player and turns on their mobile on a road trip is a potential step forward. The key is having someone else available for them to talk to when they do that.
The southern-most edge of LSAC is the 443.325+ (146.2 tone) machine in Isanti. Most won't be able to reach it with their 5W HT "mobiles", and that may be fine with the people using LSAC. I can certainly reach it with a solid S9 or S8 using my small 3-element UHF Yagi and 4W, but I can't drive around with a Yagi on my vehicle. I would think that anyone in the metro with a UHF ground-plane and around 20W would have access to that repeater, though. Absent a two-meter link in the chain accessible by at least a 40W mobile here, I tend to think LSAC will remain a novelty to those in the metro even when the south and north ends are eventually linked. EchoLink will undoubtedly be available, however. If the UHF .950 in Rogers could be linked -- a long shot, of course -- it would make LSAC truly accessible to the metro area. The challenge will be to make people in the metro aware of its existence and potential, so that they will use it when travelling in those covered areas. Further expansion of the LSAC network is too much to expect, given the burden of only two people maintaining what already exists. Any expansion would have to come from the fragmented community of people operating independent, local repeaters finding a way to link their machines to the network. Likewise, if only one of the dozen or so VHF repeaters in town could be linked, the entire game would dramatically change. The best chances for a metro-area link are on UHF. K0LAV's .800 machine, for example, would be the easiest target, since he is already planning a link to Pequot Lakes. Another potential option would be for KA0KMJ's .425 UHF machine to be linked by EchoLink conference.
There are some visionary VHF repeaters out there: MARA's outstanding .850 with multiple receive sites, the .370 sited on the IDS Tower, and the HandiHam .450 cross-band. Still, the frontier has largely been ceded to UHF here in the metro. Of the three VHF repeaters I mentioned, only HandiHam has EchoLink or IRLP, which is hardly a challenge to implement, and they are the only one with cross-band or links to other machines. And the extensive fibre network throughout the metro has not been taken advantage of to easily link machines without expensive UHF links. The future is not in a dozen VHF repeaters competing for a dwindling number of hams, nor is it is in the "hobby" repeaters on UHF with local coverage.
The days of local fiefdoms run by out-sized egos is passing away. There needs to be a novel approach that brings people together, rather than isolating them in enclaves based on band preference or club allegiance.
Linked, cross-band repeaters with EchoLink access are the future of the hobby. There will always be a place for cliquish "elites" and simplex snobs, so they shouldn't feel threatened by this new reality. Without options that engage the new Technician-Class licensees, these people will be lost before they ever realise the potential of the hobby. There will always be a place for the snarling "watch-dogs" that haunt the "emergency" repeaters. And people that abandon the hobby because the repeaters are dead won't ever get a chance to try 2-meter SSB or HF. The smart move is to hold on to the people that have already got their license, who will then tell others about the hobby's potential. That involves offering some kind of potential other than their eventual, conditional, and grudging acceptance by the "elite".
We've given the "old school" approach more than a chance. It's killing the hobby.
The VHF 145.410 repeater in Duluth was also confirmed by N0BZZ to be up and running. This is sited on a 500' (wow!) tower. I suspect that the rated 30 mile coverage radius might be conservative, so if you are up near Duluth, submit a propagation report for this machine. It isn't linked to LSAC yet, because the priority is to restore the UHF link to the Bayfield repeater.
My impression, from N0BZZ's updates, is that Randy (N0BZZ) and Pat (KB0QYC) are concentrating on restoring and upgrading the repeaters themselves before working on the links between them. This is pretty smart, and it establishes a local user base for each unlinked machine that will only grow once it is linked to the other machines in the network. N0BZZ has tentatively given early Spring as a possible date for the north and south ends of the network to be linked together, with Summer being projected for restoration of the links between the more far-flung elements. It's a heck of a lot of work for just two guys, especially considering that they are also maintaining repeaters for non-LSAC radio clubs, such as the VHF machine in Mahtowa.
With this ambitious agenda in mind, I haven't asked about the restoration of the old "LSAC II" network, which is a scattering of UHF, VHF, SHF, and 6 meter repeaters that have been operating on a standalone basis since the link between them was lost. 6 meter FM is a very good (Technician-accessible) option for these relatively remote areas, even though the numbers of people with gear (especially mobile) for the band are not high. Still, the availability of cross-band use and the (eventual) introduction of a 6 meter FM repeater to the HandiHam network may promote more activity. But that's all down the road and only dimly visible as a potential future at the moment.
I think that more people are figuring out the consequences of the current amateur radio demographics. The numbers of licensees have been held relatively steady by the introduction of newer people who really aren't getting on the air much - many of which are "preppers" that are not interested in the long-term health of the hobby or the community. With fewer people actually on the air, simplex becomes something that has to be "scheduled", and the challenge is to find those fewer numbers. Repeaters are the "watering holes" that people congregate at and gravitate towards, and linked repeaters (especially cross-band) increase the likelihood of finding both familiar people and interesting new ones. The other challenge is to get people on the air in more situations, both for them to establish ties to the community and for the community to have an active on-air population.
LSAC helps with both of these challenges. It links fragmented, smaller communities that don't have enough active people on-air at any given time to make turning on your radio look attractive to other similar communities to form a larger "pool". It also brings people together on different bands who would otherwise be unaware of each other. And it lets people stay connected to their local communities when they travel outside of it.
When the network is restored, it will be possible for a ham travelling on 35W "up north" to talk to another ham at his lake cabin near Brainerd, and let a hiker on the Superior National Trail join in. Someone on their way home from work in Pine City could talk with another ham out on Lake Superior or camping at Itasca State Park. It makes bringing a radio to those more remote locations attractive, and it makes turning on your radio at home more inviting, too. It doesn't take too many incidents of a new ham being greeted by silence when they throw out their sign to discourage them from turning on their radio in the future. There are still those who would scoff, "Good riddance!" at that situation, but more hams are realising that the crowded repeaters of the 1980's are not coming back, and that something has to change.
Linked repeaters aren't a guarantee of future growth, but they are a hell of a lot better gamble than betting on widespread simplex activity. Every time that someone packs an HT on their camping trip, or brings one up to the cabin, or turns off their CD player and turns on their mobile on a road trip is a potential step forward. The key is having someone else available for them to talk to when they do that.
The southern-most edge of LSAC is the 443.325+ (146.2 tone) machine in Isanti. Most won't be able to reach it with their 5W HT "mobiles", and that may be fine with the people using LSAC. I can certainly reach it with a solid S9 or S8 using my small 3-element UHF Yagi and 4W, but I can't drive around with a Yagi on my vehicle. I would think that anyone in the metro with a UHF ground-plane and around 20W would have access to that repeater, though. Absent a two-meter link in the chain accessible by at least a 40W mobile here, I tend to think LSAC will remain a novelty to those in the metro even when the south and north ends are eventually linked. EchoLink will undoubtedly be available, however. If the UHF .950 in Rogers could be linked -- a long shot, of course -- it would make LSAC truly accessible to the metro area. The challenge will be to make people in the metro aware of its existence and potential, so that they will use it when travelling in those covered areas. Further expansion of the LSAC network is too much to expect, given the burden of only two people maintaining what already exists. Any expansion would have to come from the fragmented community of people operating independent, local repeaters finding a way to link their machines to the network. Likewise, if only one of the dozen or so VHF repeaters in town could be linked, the entire game would dramatically change. The best chances for a metro-area link are on UHF. K0LAV's .800 machine, for example, would be the easiest target, since he is already planning a link to Pequot Lakes. Another potential option would be for KA0KMJ's .425 UHF machine to be linked by EchoLink conference.
There are some visionary VHF repeaters out there: MARA's outstanding .850 with multiple receive sites, the .370 sited on the IDS Tower, and the HandiHam .450 cross-band. Still, the frontier has largely been ceded to UHF here in the metro. Of the three VHF repeaters I mentioned, only HandiHam has EchoLink or IRLP, which is hardly a challenge to implement, and they are the only one with cross-band or links to other machines. And the extensive fibre network throughout the metro has not been taken advantage of to easily link machines without expensive UHF links. The future is not in a dozen VHF repeaters competing for a dwindling number of hams, nor is it is in the "hobby" repeaters on UHF with local coverage.
The days of local fiefdoms run by out-sized egos is passing away. There needs to be a novel approach that brings people together, rather than isolating them in enclaves based on band preference or club allegiance.
Linked, cross-band repeaters with EchoLink access are the future of the hobby. There will always be a place for cliquish "elites" and simplex snobs, so they shouldn't feel threatened by this new reality. Without options that engage the new Technician-Class licensees, these people will be lost before they ever realise the potential of the hobby. There will always be a place for the snarling "watch-dogs" that haunt the "emergency" repeaters. And people that abandon the hobby because the repeaters are dead won't ever get a chance to try 2-meter SSB or HF. The smart move is to hold on to the people that have already got their license, who will then tell others about the hobby's potential. That involves offering some kind of potential other than their eventual, conditional, and grudging acceptance by the "elite".
We've given the "old school" approach more than a chance. It's killing the hobby.
Sunday, 17 November 2013
1.25M rig options
I looked at several options to get on the 1.25M (220MHz) band before I bought I the TYT TH-9000. It's a bit surprising how little brand-new gear is out there for the band. It's not like two meters, as far as your choices go.
While there is a sub-band for CW and SSB on 1.25M, only high-end radios will cover that mode. You could use a transverter from Elecraft on a normal HF radio for CW, SSB, or PSK31. The XV222 is $400, and has about 20W output. Be aware, though, that DX on this band is unlikely. Only North and South America allows operation on the band (and not every country there, either), and frequency allocations differ between countries. Canada has CW and SSB specified on 222.05 - 222.275, and the U.S. allocation runs from 222.000 - 222.250. Mexico has a different system of specific channels, some of which are not for amateur use.
What little activity there is on 1.25M is either FM or (to a much lesser extent) packet (digital). I don't know of any digital repeaters locally for the band. I'm looking here at FM options.
While I really dislike fear-mongering, I want to point out that there is a threat of amateurs losing the 1.25M band. Unlike 10 meters, the VHF frequencies are somewhat valuable to commercial interests. Cellular technology has kept this demand down, but 220 MHz is prime digital territory for fleets. The FCC is unsympathetic, and sees the band as a great spot for new digital technology. If we don't start using 1.25M, the FCC could hand it over to commercial interests.
Kenwood has made a few 1.25M radios, but they are all discontinued: TM-331A, TM-74AD, TM-621A, and the TM-742AD.
The mobiles that are available for the band are not fancy. They don't have removable fronts, APRS, or TFT displays. They are all monoband, which can be a "deal-breaker" for many.
If you have a "thing" about Chinese radios, then your option would be the Alinco DR-235T. The DR-235T is a 25W FM mobile monoband for $225, with digital options available. Aside from the optional TNC for packet, there is also the EJ-47U board that can be added for digital FM voice. The digital voice option doesn't seem to be compatible with any of the other technologies, though. 25 watts is certainly enough for most FM repeater work. But, given the relative scarcity of 1.25M repeaters, you may find that you have a long way to go to reach that repeater in some areas. If you are considering the DR-235T for base station use, a beam would be a better option rather than throwing a lot of power in all directions.
A popular (Chinese) option is the Jetstream JT220M, which is a 50W FM mobile monoband for $230 -- about the same price as the Alinco. I considered it seriously because it only has a current draw of 9A at full power, allowing for a cheaper power supply. The reviews for this radio are not impressive, however.
Then you have what I chose: the TYT TH-9000. I got it for a bit over $170 on Amazon. It's a 50W FM mobile monoband, though it has a current draw of 12A at full power. I'm using it on a 7A supply and keeping the output down to 10W, though it seemed to handle things at 25W okay. The TYT TH-9000 also is available for 2M and 440 MHz, so don't get confused when looking at them. I could hit two of the local repeaters using a 5W HT with a "rubber duck", so 10W with a beam (or even a whip) lets me hit all four with full quieting. I'm not that interested in simplex operation, and the band is completely dead in that regard anyway, so the low power setting works fine for me. It also keeps the radio cool. Of course, the 3-element Yagi is great for low power, too. It has 200 channels, which is ridiculous. There are only about a dozen simplex channels, and you aren't likely to have many repeaters in your area.
Still, $170 is a bit of a gamble on a band like this, at least for some people. There are Chinese HT's available for those people. I've tried them and was disappointed, but they did get me on the air.
There aren't a lot of antennae out there for the band. Centerfire makes a ground plane ($30) or 3-element Yagi ($50) for the band. A J-pole is available on eBay for $20. Laird makes a basic mobile whip ($10) and a 3-element Yagi ($90). Beware any generic mobile whips. Anli sells a tri-band mobile whip for ($70).
I seems obvious, but I'll mention it: any of these mobiles need a power supply for base station use. Linear supplies are quieter, but more expensive. Look at the current rating, especially the continuous current rating, of any supply. Make sure it's capable of handling the rated current draw of the mobile. Don't get 12v supplies; only 13.8vdc should be used to keep the current draw within the rated specs. Plan on spending at least $150 for a supply, unless you already have one. If you see an HF radio in your future, it's better to get something around 25A, because that's what you'll need. Linear supplies are around $250 for that kind of current.
While there is a sub-band for CW and SSB on 1.25M, only high-end radios will cover that mode. You could use a transverter from Elecraft on a normal HF radio for CW, SSB, or PSK31. The XV222 is $400, and has about 20W output. Be aware, though, that DX on this band is unlikely. Only North and South America allows operation on the band (and not every country there, either), and frequency allocations differ between countries. Canada has CW and SSB specified on 222.05 - 222.275, and the U.S. allocation runs from 222.000 - 222.250. Mexico has a different system of specific channels, some of which are not for amateur use.
What little activity there is on 1.25M is either FM or (to a much lesser extent) packet (digital). I don't know of any digital repeaters locally for the band. I'm looking here at FM options.
While I really dislike fear-mongering, I want to point out that there is a threat of amateurs losing the 1.25M band. Unlike 10 meters, the VHF frequencies are somewhat valuable to commercial interests. Cellular technology has kept this demand down, but 220 MHz is prime digital territory for fleets. The FCC is unsympathetic, and sees the band as a great spot for new digital technology. If we don't start using 1.25M, the FCC could hand it over to commercial interests.
Kenwood has made a few 1.25M radios, but they are all discontinued: TM-331A, TM-74AD, TM-621A, and the TM-742AD.
The mobiles that are available for the band are not fancy. They don't have removable fronts, APRS, or TFT displays. They are all monoband, which can be a "deal-breaker" for many.
If you have a "thing" about Chinese radios, then your option would be the Alinco DR-235T. The DR-235T is a 25W FM mobile monoband for $225, with digital options available. Aside from the optional TNC for packet, there is also the EJ-47U board that can be added for digital FM voice. The digital voice option doesn't seem to be compatible with any of the other technologies, though. 25 watts is certainly enough for most FM repeater work. But, given the relative scarcity of 1.25M repeaters, you may find that you have a long way to go to reach that repeater in some areas. If you are considering the DR-235T for base station use, a beam would be a better option rather than throwing a lot of power in all directions.
A popular (Chinese) option is the Jetstream JT220M, which is a 50W FM mobile monoband for $230 -- about the same price as the Alinco. I considered it seriously because it only has a current draw of 9A at full power, allowing for a cheaper power supply. The reviews for this radio are not impressive, however.
Then you have what I chose: the TYT TH-9000. I got it for a bit over $170 on Amazon. It's a 50W FM mobile monoband, though it has a current draw of 12A at full power. I'm using it on a 7A supply and keeping the output down to 10W, though it seemed to handle things at 25W okay. The TYT TH-9000 also is available for 2M and 440 MHz, so don't get confused when looking at them. I could hit two of the local repeaters using a 5W HT with a "rubber duck", so 10W with a beam (or even a whip) lets me hit all four with full quieting. I'm not that interested in simplex operation, and the band is completely dead in that regard anyway, so the low power setting works fine for me. It also keeps the radio cool. Of course, the 3-element Yagi is great for low power, too. It has 200 channels, which is ridiculous. There are only about a dozen simplex channels, and you aren't likely to have many repeaters in your area.
Still, $170 is a bit of a gamble on a band like this, at least for some people. There are Chinese HT's available for those people. I've tried them and was disappointed, but they did get me on the air.
- BaoFeng makes a dual-band HT that covers 2M/1.25M. I've only seen them on eBay, which is where I bought mine. They are a standard BaoFeng in every way, except for the band coverage. You can get one for $60 - $75, which is more than you would pay for a standard 2M/70cm radio. Still, it's a lot cheaper than the TYT TH-9000. The usual caveats for Baofeng apply: the RF output on 220 MHz is only 2.5W (though 2M is good at 4W), and it gets flaky with an external antenna. BaoFengs have a weird inductive loading that works best with the "rubber duck"; an external antenna will add noise to the receiver. Still, it hits the two closest repeaters clearly with the beam. I could be made out okay using a whip on one machine. I can "ker-chunk" two repeaters with the "duck", but it's at least 12 miles to the closest. What makes this attractive is that, should 1.25M not be for you, it can still be used on two meters.BaoFeng also makes a "battery eliminator" that makes mobile use a possibility.
- TYT has a dual-band 70cm/1.25M HT -- the TH-UVF9. Like the TH-9000, there are different "flavours", so be careful when shopping. I bought one from DNJ Radio, and they shipped me a 2M/440 model instead. I got my money back, but it's still a hassle. Ultimately, I got one on eBay from a guy in Kentucky. Prices seem to vary from $80 - 100, which makes this less attractive but cheaper than a mobile. I am disappointed with this radio. The RF output on 440 MHz is only 2W, and the receiver is terrible on that band. Basically, it's useless on UHF. On 220, though, it works very well. I can hit two repeaters clearly using just the "duck", and output checks at a full 5W. The battery has a long life (1800 mAh), it receives well on 220, and it tolerates external antennas just fine. You can use the BaoFeng "battery eliminators" with this radio. Be aware that the included mobile charger will ruin the battery if you transmit while charging. One thing that I like about this HT is that it has MSK, so that I can send my callsign digitally.
- TYT also has a cheaper option: the UV3R. For about $60, it's absolutely basic. Only 2.5W RF output turned me off, because you know that it isn't even that strong. It has USB charging, if you think that's cool. It's a dual-band 2M/220, but the low power doesn't make 2M very feasible - even if it isn't like the UVF9's second band. At this price, the Baofeng is a better bet, in my opinion.
- Wouxun offers the dual-band KG UVD1P HT in different "flavours". At $100 - 150, it's a bit pricier and quality issues have been widely reported. Much like the BaoFeng, it's 2M/220. I haven't bought this, since I already had the Baofeng. For the price, you might as well buy the TYT mobile unless you have a need to operate portable on the band.
There aren't a lot of antennae out there for the band. Centerfire makes a ground plane ($30) or 3-element Yagi ($50) for the band. A J-pole is available on eBay for $20. Laird makes a basic mobile whip ($10) and a 3-element Yagi ($90). Beware any generic mobile whips. Anli sells a tri-band mobile whip for ($70).
I seems obvious, but I'll mention it: any of these mobiles need a power supply for base station use. Linear supplies are quieter, but more expensive. Look at the current rating, especially the continuous current rating, of any supply. Make sure it's capable of handling the rated current draw of the mobile. Don't get 12v supplies; only 13.8vdc should be used to keep the current draw within the rated specs. Plan on spending at least $150 for a supply, unless you already have one. If you see an HF radio in your future, it's better to get something around 25A, because that's what you'll need. Linear supplies are around $250 for that kind of current.