Talk:1.25-meter band

Untitled

"Today, while not as widely available as 2 meter and 70 centimeter equipment, 1.25 meter equipment is much easier to obtain than it has been in the past and there is new handheld and mobile equipment being produced by amateur radio manufacturers."

The only mobile (non-handheld) equipment I have seen on the new market (as opposed to the used market) is the Alinco DR-235T. With only one rig available, I think the statement above is false and should be removed. Is there other gear available new of which I am not aware? Off2Explore (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that staement is 'false' nor should it be removed. True there is only one new mobile out there, as mentioned, but there are plenty of new handhelds out there, Kenwood's F6A being the prime example. Also with the rise of eBay, eHam's classifieds and all sorts of other buy and sell easily accessible on the internet, I have found it relatively easy to find used rigs. In fact, I think this article should include a section on the rigs which are out there - all you need do is periodically go to eBay and enter the model number as a search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.105.83 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As of Jan 1, 2010, there are two monoband mobile units in production, the Alinco as mentioned as well as the Jetstream JT220M which itself puts out 50 watts. Alinco also makes new monoband 220 HT's, and Kenwood and Yaesu includes the 1.25 metre band in many of its new HT's. The Chinese company Wouxun has a new dual-watch KG-UVD1P with can include a 5 watt version of 220MHz. So, why would the "neutrality" of the statement be disputed? 70.70.160.153 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting, referencing

I've deleted material that was mostly inappropriate to encyclopedic content, either because it was mutable, too ham-centric, or primarily listings of external links. Reinstate it if you want, but I think we're better off getting the rest of this article (and others like it) properly referenced before filling them out with more arcane details. Ninly (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article still has some major problems. For one, it is entirely focused on the band as it is defined and used in the United States and Canada - what about the rest of the hemisphere? There are almost no references to support claimed statements of fact. There are several sentences that are clearly the author's opinion. Finally, about a third of article content was a directory of external links that was not suitable to an encyclopedic article. I fixed the latter problem and have tagged the former problems.--Kharker (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is none to very little information available that I've found for the rest of the hemisphere.Stereorock (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've continued this pursuit, and started to look for more references, although you're both right, they're sparse. If you have any more books or magazines lying around with information on the history of the band, they could come in handy. I didn't cut too much on this pass, but I probably will soon. Specifically, I don't think the article needs to be talking about particular manufacturers except in broad strokes, and certainly not specific equipment models, unless they have contributed significantly to the historical development or character of the band. Saying "few radios have been commercially manufactured for these frequencies, and when they have they haven't sold well" should be enough.

I also added a weasel-words tag to the Propagation Characteristics section ("Some people say..." should always raise an eyebrow), in addition to your POV tags, but I stopped short of cutting it way down on this pass. Saying that propagation range on 220 is as good as 2m, while noise floor and penetration are as good as 440, is just not true (although characteristics may be comparable, and 220 may be a good compromise). However, I need to get some sleep before making any major changes. :)

Finally, although I cleaned them up a bit, I would argue that sample band plans have little place in these articles -- there are other, more topical references for such things, and band plans are rarely definitive or useful in an encyclopedic way -- but that's a discussion for the WikiProject. /Ninly (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps claiming better propagation than 440 with a lower noise floor than 2m would be reasonable? In any case, the two key factors likely to motivate use of 222MHz are that new handheld transceivers (Kenwood, Yaesu Y8R, et al.) do have models with three-band or four-band coverage and 2m is crowded to the point where many densely-populated areas have a lack of suitable open frequency pairs on which to build new repeaters. Most locations where a lack of available 2m spectrum for new repeaters and more users is an obstacle could easily accommodate them (and any additional traffic) on 1.25m. Certainly manufacturers of one-band and two-band mobile equipment prefer to support 2m and 70cm first (in that order) to reach the largest number of users, but once those start to become full, any spillover into a third band must go (for want of other similar frequencies) to 50MHz or to 220. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii

The 1.25 meter band is available for use by amateurs in Hawaii. Is it available to any other Region III areas covered by FCC jurisdiction? KH2, KH0?--Kharker (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawai'i is still part of Region 2. As the F.C.C. rules are defined, it appears that the band is NOT available to U.S. hams in Region 3 (the KHØ & KH2 that you mentioned for example)Stereorock (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Former "Class E CB" proposal?

If I haven't packed them away, I may find some 1973 issues of "73" magazine, which was at the time quite perturbed at the prospect of a 220 MHZ "Class E" citizen's band. This should be added to the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look for discussions about FCC Docket No. 19759 in 1973. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)