Talk:70-centimeter band

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Amateur radio (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amateur radio, which collaborates on articles related to amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

characteristics[edit]

I've only recently started looking into Amateur radio and I have a question about the 70 cm band: What are the characteristics of this band that would make using it preferred to two meter? If someone can help, please improve the 70 cm article. Punkgeek 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will try, starting with cleaning up some of the errors about multipath. Altaphon 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The present "Comparison of the 2-meter and 70-centimeter bands" is somewhat debatable and totally unreferenced. It is true that for a given physical size, an antenna for a shorter wavelength can have more gain. (But note that collecting area scales as wavelength squared! :-) This does not show that you have a 5 dB improvement between radios at 450 MHz vs 144 MHz in real life. What about receiver noise figure, transmit power, ambient noise level, propagation, etc.? (In particular, lower frequencies are probably better in a hills and valleys situation.) Has someone published a test that shows 70 cm repeaters truly have much greater range than 2 M machines or is this a theoretical speculation? This kind of claim must have a reliable reference, or it should be removed.--Albany45 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
In many areas of the US, at least, an important difference between 2m and 70cm is that the 2m repeater slots are all allocated (though the band is pretty quiet, on average) while repeater pairs on 70cm are still available. The difference in propagation (weak signal, long distance) is pronounced, also. I'm not sure this section is very helpful as it stands, since its focus is only HTs and repeaters. In any case, we need references.--Albany45 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

stub?[edit]

This article looks pretty complete to me. Is there anything else left out that makes it a stub? --ssd 10:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that was removed: not a stub anymore, yay! -- TheAnarcat (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How to not make us-centric?[edit]

So while we now have info about australia and the UK, it would be nice to have things from other places. More specifically, the ITU regions 1/2/3 regulations would be sufficient, I think, to remove the banner. Oddly enough, the band plans I could find from ITU-2 are only for MF/HF: http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/ which is weird to me. I haven't put that banner in there, so I am hesitant in removing it (being in Canada), but I feel there's already good information about things outside the US in there.. not sure we need that banner, basically. -- TheAnarcat (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Spectrum Usage[edit]

The 70 cm band is being targeted as one of the places for the FCC to collect 500 Mhz of poorly used spectrum to auction off for wireless broadband in the United States. Since the ARRL is surely going to fight that, it might be useful to find information about how many licensed repeaters there actually are, how much the band is used, examples of how it remaining an amateur band is in the public interest.... I think this article lost focus on the fact that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, not a place to conduct hobbies. Your grandmother doesn't know or care what a continuously loaded coil spring antenna is.69.37.85.3 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)