RadioBanter - Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz

From: Leo on Thurs, Jan 19 2006 5:30 pm

On 18 Jan 2006 18:04:24 -0800, wrote:
From: Leo on Jan 18, 2:53 pm
On 17 Jan 2006 06:49:27 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

So...Leo, what's the word from Canadian amateur radio on
the IC reallocation of "220?"

I have not been a user of the 220 MHz band (hmmm - maybe that's part
of the problem!), and cannot add much to what the original ARRL
bulletin stated.

I do recall receiving warning bulletins from the RAC back in 2004
stating that the 220 - 222 MHz Amateur allocation was under review by
Industry Canada, and we would lose it if we were not sufficiently
active on it. Commercial interests (specifically for multi-use radios
(MURS), trunked mobile and fixed wireless access applications, medical
telemetry and utility telemetry applications) had petitioned for this
spectrum to be released to them.

In short - we did not sufficiently utilize this band - and lost it,
despite significant lobbying by RAC to hang on to it.

On the other side of the coin, there were more non-amateur
radio users desiring VHF spectrum?

[I will ignore some readers who want to carp about "big
money interests" and other Bravo Sierra...]

Goes to show ya that our Amateur frequency allocations are not crafted
in stone - they can be taken away if we cannot demonstrate that we are
actively using them!

That's always the case. However, presenting a case is not always
done properly (or realistically). In the USA there was a petition
for the "60m band" for U.S. amteur use and the FCC granted only
a few CHANNELS in that region of HF. That was in spite of other
(non-amateur, non-broadcasting) users not using that part of the
HF spectrum often or heavily.

[not that it matters directly to me, but such an actual
subject of discussion would be preferable to the sniping and
general name-calling on personalities in here...where
every day is Boxing Day...in the literal sense of the word]

Agreed!

hey..... I think I said that! That's my line!

Clear breach of copyright here - I'll sue you! :) :) :)

Okay, agree to hold civil court procedings in Sioux City... :-)

By the way, a good example of "220" in operation is the
Condor Net covering most of the length of California and
reaching into states of Nevada and Arizona. Over two
decades of operation and begun before repeater micro-
processor control was the common thing in repeater control.

I forgot to include the URL for the Condor Net:

http://www.condor-connection.org

The Condor Net has been up for 28 years, is privately-owned and
run by amateurs, is open to anyone on 1 1/4 meters in the
California (Sacramento to San Diego), Arizona (Phoenix, Kingman),
Nevada, and parts of Utah near California. It was designed for
LONG-distance repeatering, entire Net control via PLCC tone
signalling and thus isn't a "local" repeater. I view it as an
excellent concept-AND-implementation and a true hobbyist good-
spirit endeavor (NO fees charged for participation).

I bring up the Condor Net because of the approximate equivalency
of populations between California and all of Canada and that the
Condor Net extends the linkage of VHF FM radios a very long way.
Obviously Canada has much more territory to cover, but Condor
extends over a 700 (give or take) range of geographic coverage.

From the "cool pictures" page on the condor-connection URL, it is
obvious that the owners-operators are getting a bit long in the
tooth. However, they all paid for the network out of their own
pockets, had to have the free money of their own to sink into
the concept, and have not asked for anything in return from any
user. Some of the repeater sites have changed ownership as
a few of the originals retired or moved. At close to three
decades of use it is still hanging in there and kept on the air.
I give them a lot of credit for doing so...in the true spirit
of fellowship to other amateur radio hobbyists.