TCRC's UHF effort

It's been a couple of weeks since the Twin City Repeater Club has put the hybrid Yaesu DR-1 to work. It's nice that they also announce it on their website. The UHF .300 now transmits all over the metro, though there's a bit of an "alligator" happening with the receiver. In my car, I'm often unable to even "ker-chunk" the .300 out here in western suburbs, though I can hear other people within its reception area at S9 when they make it in. The tech team is becoming aware of the issue, and a preamp for the front end might be in order. As I understand it, the VHF .210 is already using a receive preamp.

With so much of the UHF infrastructure here either being dedicated to "emergency" use or "hobby" repeaters, those notable exceptions that remain struggle to attract users to a band that has been deemed "empty" and "unsuitable" to a generation obsessed with two metres. While the TCRC has spurned any cross-band endeavours, they have long been a force in town for UHF. That doesn't mean that they always had the best equipment, because they have four repeaters on four bands, after all. Who else does that? N0FKM (Dan) had three bands going for a while. HandiHam is talking about adding six and ten, and still talking about restoring their link to 1.25M, but it isn't here.

Some clubs in the metro have implemented UHF repeaters, while others want nothing to do with the band. The TCFMC operates two UHF machines, MARA runs the 444.800+, and the Gopher Radio Club has the 444.425+, for example. HandiHam, of course, is the biggest UHF "player" in the metro: the Chaska SNP machine, the Bloomington 444.325+, the 444.650+, and the (currently down) 444.850 repeater in Edina. All of these HandiHam machines are linked and cross-band to VHF.

But that's about it, as far as clubs go. The Anoka County Radio Club (ACRC) can barely handle its UHF link to the remote receive site, abandoned their token support of 1.25M, and sees nothing beyond two metres. The Maple Grove Radio Club (MGRC) is another two-metre-only group that seems almost embarrassed by the UHF linked network growing on its fringes, and one that rejects remote receive sites because it would involve UHF links (scary!). Even though two prominent members of the organisation operate UHF repeaters (444.375+ and 444.775+), "cross-banding" is a profane word to the group. And the St. Paul Radio Club (SPRC) is looking as much towards ten metres as it is two metres -- UHF never really happened in that world.

The "club model" that was envisioned thirty years ago to drive development of the infrastructure and operator base has largely failed, at least here in the metro. Instead, the clubs are a regressive force serving more as a museum, preserving the infrastructure of the past.

It's not that UHF is particularly difficult to get into, after all. There are all kinds of UHF machines of various quality floating around. Duplexers are easy to find, and antennae are smaller. There are even open frequency pairs to be had. It's not surprising, then, that individuals are driving so much of the UHF development instead of clubs. The consequence of this is a proliferation of low-powered, low-coverage "hobby" repeaters on the band, and most are fairly unreliable at that. Clubs have access to the best sites in most cases, and we know where their priorities are.

This is why it's encouraging to me that the TCRC is taking back the 444.300 from its obscure and crippled state. With some improvement on the receiver capabilities, it would be a true power-house that would cover all of the outlying areas of the metro. It would be a fantastic mobile repeater, even if it's never linked or cross-banded.

Cross-band operation is the best way to overcome the "two metres rules" mind-set that has become so entrenched. With dual-band radios so much more common than thirty years ago, UHF just needs a little nudge. As with 1.25M, expecting hams to isolate themselves from the vast majority on two metres is a fairly lousy plan. And there's no constructive reason to make two metres the sole option. UHF and 1.25M are much more suited to the urban/suburban situation, and are more scalable. Rather than exacting some kind of social penalty for using these bands, forward-thinking clubs should be trying to make it as painless as possible.

It seems as if the TCRC isn't "there" yet on cross-banding. Likewise with the "emergency" network on UHF. I'm still hopeful that an individual will seize the initiative and break this inertia. Why couldn't the VHF .370 cross-band via EchoLink to the Medtronic 444.525+, for example? They both have EchoLink and they largely duplicate coverage. Is it really just about egos, control, and status -- or is about the future of the hobby? Neither is likely to get "overwhelmed" by traffic if a cross-band link is implemented. Wouldn't it be easier and more cost-effective to maintain two machines rather than four or five on HandiHam? Even if this particular example doesn't "work", it bolsters the case for TCRC to make a link between their own machines. Most individuals don't have the VHF side of the equation, but some do. N0FKM (Dan) has UHF, VHF, and 1.25M slots, gear, and sites along with EchoLink. But is it fair to expect one guy to do what others are too weak-willed and myopic to tackle?

Unfortunately, at this point we should simply feel lucky as a community that TCRC moved forward on UHF at all.