• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Yes or no?

"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Vt+VY5Cb6OUKFwT3@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <h2qou4$2s3$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Yeti
> <yeti@ayrshore.com> writes
>>Steve Terry wrote:
>>> "Yeti" <yeti@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h2qn68$g61$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whereas a CBer can be a operator using unmodified radios
>>>>>  for local use as they were designed for.
>>>> If they were designed for local use, they shouldn't have been on HF!
>>>>
>>>> The Government here managed to screw up twice in one go - 27MHz was too
>>>> low to be 'local' and 934MHz was too high to work (almost anywhere!).
>>>>
>>> Phillips and other manufactures supported around 225 to 240 MHz FM
>>>  That's where CB should have been, but the MOD didn't want to give up
>>> the smallest amount of what they saw as UHF airband
>>>  Steve Terry
>>>
>>I agree.
>>220MHz would have been ideal.
>>High enough to give 25kHz channels, with little interference (RX or TX),
>>and low enough for the radios not to cost a fortune.
>
> Too close to DAB radio. I wonder if they foresaw it coming?
> Ian
>
>
Band 3, 175MHz to 225 was allocated to PBR trunking radio, that's why
above 225 was looked at, the biggest fear was possible freebanding
of 225 to 235MHz  interference on to 243MHz UHF AM distress.

The obvious place now for a new CB service would be to simply
adopt US UHF 462/7MHz GMRS, which was originally US class A CB.

GMRS also has provision for 5MHz split repeaters, so public UHF
repeaters as they have in OZ on 477MHz could be possible on 462/7

Steve Terry

Antworten