<p dir="ltr">Ray,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Let's hope that that doesn't happen! When I first started in amateur radio 70cm covered 420-450MHz and we lost the 420-430MHz in 2000 for the Sydney Olympics. I remember the outrage that some local amateurs had over the LIPD section was setup in 1997 and that Dick Smith were selling uhf hand helds that were setup for the LIPD band and you could interfere with one of the local 70cm repeaters!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Ok history lesson finished! </p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon., 13 Nov. 2017, 07:55 vk2tv, <<a href="mailto:vk2tv@exemail.com.au">vk2tv@exemail.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Arial">70cm will get a lot worse when we eventually
loose 440-450MHz, and that's just a matter of time as spectrum gets
sold off.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Ray vk2tv</font><br>
</p></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="m_4263402562132560946moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/17 19:42, Scott Evans wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Well bandplans come and go and I'm really struggling
to get my head around the 5/7 splits just to avoid the LIPD
allocation. Ok yes there's some sections of the 70cm band that
have dedicated use (space, weak signal etc) another frequency
allocation that is just silly, 439.200 being set aside for
digital voice (P25, DSTAR, DMR and C4FM) also doesn't quite make
any logical sense to me. But what would I know? 🤔 </p>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun., 12 Nov. 2017, 19:32 Glen English VK1XX,
<<a href="mailto:glenlist@pacificmedia.com.au" target="_blank">glenlist@pacificmedia.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Scott<br>
<br>
yeah 439.1 which is USELESS DUMB IDEA I EVER HEARD OF , I see
it in the<br>
bandplan.<br>
<br>
why ? because it is too close to easily diplex into existing
70cm<br>
repeater systems that it might have to share with. Whoever
came up with<br>
439.1 had NFI.<br>
<br>
Two problems<br>
<br>
1) requires lots of filtering and or loss to combine with
438-440<br>
transmitters<br>
<br>
2) Because the digi would need to RECEIVE next door to the
70cm repeater<br>
transmitter, it will just get knocked over with TX noise
unless you<br>
throw something like 3 x 6" 3/4 wave cans at it.... like no
way.<br>
<br>
Canberra city is going on 442.975<br>
Ginini will go on 442.775 , tentatively, barring staying out
of the way<br>
of numerous UHF repeater links..<br>
Maybe they should go on 12.5k offsets to stay clear. hmm.<br>
<br>
200kHz apart in the same region is far enough that sidebands
and spurs<br>
from one TX (say on 442.775) will not get into the other
receiver (say<br>
on 442.975)<br>
<br>
:-)<br>
g<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OZAPRS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au" target="_blank">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_4263402562132560946mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
OZAPRS mailing list
<a class="m_4263402562132560946moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au" target="_blank">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a>
<a class="m_4263402562132560946moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" target="_blank">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
OZAPRS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au" target="_blank">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a><br>
</blockquote></div>