Order Cart | Contact Us | Home | SIGs | Login


Purpose: To provide and collect information regarding the potential of APRS QSYing to 144.39. The project was sucessful, APRS relocated operations to remove potential interference issues with space activities.

APRS QSY Final Report (pdf format 3.0, 157K)

View the changes between January 1998 and 1999 in this GIF movie
Images from Jeff Brenton, KA9VNV.

APRS QSY Proposal

Position Statements and Comments

Results from APRS QSY Questionnaire

General Comments


APRS/Manned Space Frequency Alliance
Frank H. Bauer, KA3HDO


The Manned Space Community and the APRS community have a unique but common problem. Both require nationwide (APRS) or worldwide (manned space) frequency coordination to make their facet of amateur radio completely effective. Both have suffered significantly from 2 meter frequency interference and disjointed national and international frequency coordination. If the manned space frequencies are to achieve global coordination on 2 meters, they will require the use of 145.80 as a downlink frequency. This is within 10 kHz of the current 145.79 APRS frequency-resulting in a severe frequency interference problem.

Frequency interference for human-tended space vehicles is a tremendous problem. Many international organizations have complained about the frequencies selected for SAREX and MIR. To alleviate this problem, AMSAT-NA has worked with the ARRL and members of the IARU nations to help coordinate the human-tended space frequencies at the international level. The ultimate goal is to get a set of frequencies that will not require the space crews to switch frequencies from one part of the globe to another and that will accommodate simultaneous use of the Space Shuttle, MIR, and the International Space Station. However, global coordination of a common set of amateur radio frequencies for human-tended space vehicles has been very difficult. The three IARU regions (Region 1: Europe & Africa, Region 2: North and South America, and Region 3: Asia and Australia) each have differing bandplans. Traditionally, frequencies at VHF and above are used for line of sight communications. Therefore, they are usually coordinated at the local level with no concern for global coordination. This means that many countries within each IARU region has differing bandplans or "gentleman's agreements". In space, this "local coordination" becomes a problem because line of sight communications on the Space Shuttle and MIR overlap several countries or continents simultaneously. This causes interference in space and on the Earth and a violation of these gentlemen's agreements. To date, the 2 meter band represents the most challenging coordination effort because it is the most used amateur radio band and it is currently the primary band for SAREX and Mir. While SAREX, Mir and ISS expect to use higher bands (e.g. 70 cm) in the future, 2 meters will continue to be an "entry level" capability on these vehicles as well as an easy to use band for school student educational purposes.

APRS has a unique need for a single frequency nationwide. This is because unlike other packet radio systems that rely on connected protocols, APRS uses unconnected, or UI, frames to transmit its data. This is a much more efficient way of distributing data to the 100 or more stations in a busy area like SF bay or Atlanta. The UI frames are not able to be efficiently routed through multichannel backbone systems or between areas on different frequencies. Another reason for the single frequency is that many crystal controlled radios are used as stand alone trackers, and as they move from one area to the next there is no way to switch from one freq to another. The need for a single channel is not theoretical. People in Central California and Upstate NY, who have suffered with disjointed APRS frequencies, recognize that a single, nationwide APRS frequency is vitally needed.

Known Facts

  • When viewed from a global perspective, frequencies in the 2 meter band are extensively used.

  • The IARU region 1, 2 and 3 bandplans for 2 meters and other VHF and UHF >bands are currently disjointed.

  • From a SAREX perspective, it has become increasingly difficult to find clear 2 meter frequencies to use during the school group contacts and for general amateur radio contacts (QSOs).

  • The European ham community have lodged complaints regarding the use of >the 145.55 frequency for MIR and SAREX because it is one of Europe's primary call-in frequencies.

  • There is no single, nationwide or North America frequency for APRS. APRS is primarily using 145.79 and 145.01 in the US and 144.39 in Canada

  • 145.80 downlink is currently untenable for Shuttle, Mir and ISS due to terrestrial APRS ops

  • In the U.S., AMSAT/ARRL recently cleared use of part of new OSCAR subband (144.30-144.50)

  • The international manned space community is working with the IARU member nations to coordinate the following 2 meter frequencies for human tended operation on Shuttle, Mir and ISS:
  • Primary Downlink: 145.80
  • Uplinks: 144.49, 144.47 & 144.45 (worldwide) 145.20 (Europe only)

  • Assumptions

  • Use of the 145.80-146.0 OSCAR sub-band should be avoided for Mir, SAREX, and ISS if possible. This is a weak signal uplink and downlink medium for unmanned satellites. If FM operations in this sub-band is required, it should be used only as a secondary (backup) downlink frequency. The preferred international downlink frequency for manned space activity is 145.80.

  • The worldwide CW/SSB weak signal sub-band (144.0-144.3) should be avoided for FM voice/packet operations.

  • Recommended Solution

    With band crowding, there are very few solutions to the combined APRS/Manned Space 2 meter frequency problems. Steve Dimse, K4HG, Greg Jones, WD5IVD, and Frank Bauer, KA3HDO have proposed an alliance between the manned space community and the APRS community to help resolve their collective problems. This alliance would result in a true compromise that will provide more effective use of the 2 meter band and improved operations for manned space and APRS. As described above, the manned space community would QSY to a 145.80 downlink and uplinks at 144.45-144.49. APRS would QSY from 145.79 to 144.39. This will provide a single APRS frequency in North America and a clear downlink for manned space. Of course, this assumes others do not take up the 145.79 frequency vacated by APRS.

    To accomplish these frequency changes, the APRS, SAREX and TAPR teams have proposed that these teams work together to garner the following:

  • Obtain official, national recognition by the ARRL, TAPR and AMSAT-NA that APRS and SAREX are vital and exciting modes of amateur radio
  • AMSAT-NA commitment to allow APRS experimentation and ops on future digital satellites, P3D and ISS
  • Through AMSAT-NA and TAPR, work with ARRL and ham community to obtain: -Single, nationwide APRS frequency in 2 meter band -Previously suggested 2 m uplinks and downlinks for manned space
  • Through TAPR, establish APRS-QSY donation pool and solicit donations

  • Discussion

    Please note that the team is not asking the ARRL to coordinate the Manned Space or APRS frequencies, just to endorse the cooperative QSY activity as a way to more effectively use the crowded 2 meter band.

    The establishment of an APRS QSY donation pool will help defer the cost of new radios, antennas, or crystals that may be required to move digis from 145.79 to 144.39. Since October, the 144.39 frequency has been evaluated across the U.S. to ensure the move by the APRS community will not seriously impact other activities. Except for some sporadic simplex operations, a few ATV users and a few 2 meter AM operators, the frequency appears viable for national use. These sporadic issues are currently being worked at the local level through educating the regional hams of the problems facing the APRS and Manned Space community and through minor changes in local/regional frequency use.

    Through TAPR, a World Wide Web Page has been developed to present the APRS/Manned Space issues, provide an opportunity for comments and to develop a database of all APRS and PBBS stations that need to QSY. As part of this web page, APRS users requesting financial help to QSY would submit an application with expected cost requirements and, through donations, those needing help would receive the funding required to QSY their equipment

    To date, TAPR and AMSAT-NA have endorsed the APRS/Manned Space alliance and the APRS QSY activity and have each pledged up to $500 to the APRS QSY donation pool.


    APRS and Manned space activities are exciting and challenging facets of amateur radio. Collectively, they infuse new blood into the amateur radio hobby through outstanding educational opportunities for students and positive experiences to the general public. By working together, the two communities will forge a solid future for APRS, for manned space, and for amateur radio in general. It is hoped that the ARRL Board of Directors will also endorse this compromise as an example of cooperation between two different facets of amateur radio.

    Proposed Resolution

    Whereas the ARRL recognizes that APRS and SAREX/ARISS are vital and exciting facets of amateur radio and

    Whereas the ARRL recognizes the unique needs of APRS and SAREX/ARISS for nationwide frequencies and

    Whereas the ARRL supports the experimentation of APRS through various amateur radio satellites and the International Space Station.

    Be it resolved that the ARRL endorses the concept of an APRS-Manned Space compromise as a mechanism to share frequencies in the crowded 2-meter band to minimize interference. Moreover, the ARRL approves a donation of up to $500 to support the APRS QSY initiatives once the fund is established.

    Positions Statements regarding APRS QSY

    Comments of Bob Bruninga, WB4APR

    The frequency issue is complex. As a life member of AMSAT, the ARRL and author of APRS my feet are in all camps. I have always felt that APRS will be best for everyone if it has its own dedicated frequency because it is a single mission application FOR MOBILES who wander nationwide. Unfortunately, 145.79 which evolved in many areas is still not gaining coordination in some areas and of course is not workable with future SAREX and manned space missions.

    Actually the vacating of 144.39 from the old OSCAR band by AMSAT may make it available in many areas. Before it gets gobbled up by someone else, it could have potential as a continent wide single APRS frequency (is already APRS natinowide in canada). We need to ask for it NOW. Go listen, see if you can find anyone on the frequency. Maybe set a TNC to beacon there so if there are any existin users, they may contact you. . Might even be a fun 2m BAND opening indicator since until there are any DIGIpeaters there, EVERYONE will be DIRECT! Hummh!!! Perfect for Meteorscatter packets too! Meteors occur EVERY day, not just during rare showers! (keep em short)

    The good news out of the TAPR/ARRL/APRS conference is that AMSAT appears willing to endorse APRS as a viable packet mode on future spacecraft and on the Space Station! Steve Dimse has a good idea in a contributory funding mechanism to help FUND the APRS movement to 144.39 for those who are unable to afford new crystals for major digipeaters.

    BEST case scenario:

      We get a "blessed nationwide frequency", some APRS
      Satellites, a full APRS station on the space station
      and LOTS of fun

    WORST case:

      Everyone makes a big fuss and nobody wins...
      We continue with 4 splintered freqs we have
      now and add 144.39 where available as a 5th?!

    I think Stan Horzepa asked for EVERYONE that was seriously impacted to send FACTS, so we know how many APRS statons are XTAL controlled. In my case only 3 of my 6 one watt trackers are Xtal controlled. All else except for 5 more MFJ data radios are tunable. Maybe we could get MFJ or someone to bulk purchase 144.39 xtals for their radios?

    I think it is a GOOD thing for APRS natiownide. In a few days, look for my spare rigs on 144.39!

    Comments of Mark Sproul, KB2ICI

    Steve [k4hg] has been doing a termondous amount of work discussing these issues with many people. He has put tremondous amounts of thought and effort into the affects it will cause on all of us. Steve spent most of his time at DCC talking to others and LISTENING to other peoples comments (including mine) about the issue.

    The people from AMSAT have also put a LOT of time into this proposal, it is agreed that the "powers-that-be" MUST agree to it BEFORE we agree to it as a whole, but it will give us an OFFICIAL frequency that no-one can complain about and it will give us a lot of other benifits.

    The change will be less than simple for many, I have 7 crystal controled Maxon radios for tracker boxes, many people have crystal controled digis, we know that it is not going to be easy and not going to happen overnight. As soon as I get an antenna repaired that blew down last month, I will be putting up a station on 145.39, this will be a second station and will not be my primary one, but I am going to put it there to see how things are going.

    We ALL agree that if the top-dogs dont sign-off on this, then it wont happen, but I think (and hope) they will, and when they do, I hope that all of us can gracefully switch over with an attitude of cooporation with AMSAT, not an attitude of resentment.

    Mark Sproul

    Report of Proceedings

    1997 Midwest APRS Conference

    Held November 1, 1997, at Kansas City, Missouri

    The 1997 Midwest APRS Conference was convened at Kansas City, Missouri, on Saturday, November 1, 1997.

    Item V (Relocating APRS Operations Frequencies)

    Debate and Discussion of the AMSAT request for APRS operations to vacate 145.79 MHz in favor of 144.39 MHz. Comments, both pro and con, were received from the participants. Prior to beginning the debate/discussion, KU0G stated the following:

    "I have agreed to withhold my personal opinions on this issue until after all debate and discussion are concluded. This is my agreement with Mr. Dimse and the powers that be in APRS. I have promised to direct these proceedings in an impartial manner and will make no recommendation. The opinions I express are not intended to mandate or dictate the outcome of today's discussion."

    Paricipants took time to read the papers presented by Frank Bauer, KA3HDO; Jim Duncan, KU0G; and Steve Dimse, K4HG. Additional pertinent information as received from solicited input from APRS users was also reviewed at this time.

    Concerns expressed over the proposed relocation to 144.39 MHz:

    There is no guarantee of the International Space Station. It will not fly any time soon.

    A local change in antenna polarization by the amateur television group resulted in the loss of over half of the active ATVers. The change in frequency will most like result in a significant loss of people due to an unwillingness to change or lack of information. Issue: "Do we want to lose users?"

    A change would probably be OK if the expense of changing over was reimbursed.

    The QSY fund information specifically says "digipeaters", not users.

    A frequency change at this time will serve to create splinter groups when some refuse to move while others already established on frequencies other than 145.79 MHz do not move.

    Is the issue of a single, unified frequency sufficient to warrant a change in frequency?

    How many people ACTUALLY spend time traveling long distances where changing frequency becomes an issue?

    Better information dissemination on area frequency usage is desireable.

    ARRL could publish a list of regional APRS frequencies in the annual repeater directory.

    How were the frequencies originally chosen? (This question was answered by KU0G by paraphrasing the posting to the APRSSIG on TAPR by Tom Clark, W3IWI.)

    For astronaut communication to succeed space must be permitted even if it is only one or two frequencies.

    The issue of laying down plans in advance of I.S.S. is proper. AMSAT is looking at future use with the plan of not waiting until the last minute.

    We were given a commitment by AMSAT that a satellite would be up and flying ten years ago (Phase 3) and where is it? We made the commitment to that but there are no results.

    We DO have a large chunk of concrete in orbit now...

    AMSAT should recommend moving ISS to the high end of the satellite subband. Could we submit a proposal for this?

    After we've moved this time when will we have to move AGAIN?!?!?

    We are setting a dangerous precedent if we do move that whenever somebody isn't happy with us being around that they'll want us to move!

    The operations of MIR and SAREX are extremely itinerrant. Many times MIR isn't even accessible during good passes.

    How much REAL likelihood is there that the average amateur will have an opportunity to work the Shuttle?

    Most Shuttle operations are now limited to "pre-arranged" contacts with school groups using frequencies which aren't publicly announced to prevent other stations from interfering with the scheduled contact. Most of the amateur community never gets a real opportunity to work the Shuttle due to low orbital inclination or lack of availability of the station or the operator.

    The issue of communications with the International Space Station is still 10 years distant. By that time technology may have cured this problem for us. Look at what has happened with VHF equipment in just the past 10 years. Technology WILL change. The possibility of spread spectrum communications or some other form not yet realized may eliminate the problem. We should challenge the designers and equipment manufacturers to work toward new technology such as extremely narrow-band transmission.

    We are still in the infancy with APRS. We need to stay where we are for stability's sake. We're just now beginning to realize the impact that APRS is going to have on the future of amateur radio.

    The debate was called at this point by KU0G with the question: "What is our purpose here today? Are we going to vote on whether to move, or not? I do not believe that it is time to make such a vote. Steve Dimse's correspondence to this conference states it very well."

    (quotations from the correspondence read aloud at this point)

    "I do not believe that we should begin to issue a regional opinion or recommendation until we can gather more input and information. How shall we proceed?"

    The following 11 statements are the result of the challenge question by KU0G:

    I. We wish to work cooperatively with then entire APRS family. We are not unwilling to cooperate. If all others change, we will change along with them.

    II. There is no IMMEDIATE need to change frequency.

    III. The only compelling issue is to get all APRS on one frequency. At this point we know where the other regions are operating and we have good communication of that information. While it is inconvenient from the standpoint of a mobile operation, it is not in insurmountable challenge. Most long distance mobile operations involve considerable advance planning. In most cases the APRS operator will have already investigated the area(s) of planned travel to KNOW what frequency to use.

    IV. The issue of the cost factor to INDIVIDUALS has not yet been properly addressed.

    The issue of administration of the proposed "QSY Fund" has not been defined.

    VI. The change will likely have a negative impact on growth of APRS as we know it now. What percentage of our users, particularly the occasional user who may only activate once every couple of months, will be lost if we move?

    VII. APRS is still in it's infancy. We do not need to kick the legs out from under it before it is fully developed.

    VIII. Future technology may change or eliminate this issue altogether. We should encourage experimentation and development of ways to peacefully co-exist.

    IX. The perceived benefits and cost factors (both financial and non-financial) are not currently conducive to a move.

    We should encourage AMSAT to reconsider it's proposed allocation of I.S.S. operations to the top of the satellite sub-band. Europeans can still listen to the downlink even if Doppler shift of the signal moves up the band without violating their VHF allocation.

    In conclusions, it is the consensus of this conference body that we state the following:

    We do not feel that we can effectively speak for the entire region at this time. We wish to encourage further investigation by ARRL, AMSAT, TAPR and others of the full ramifications of this proposed relocation paying particular attention to the ten points that we have mutually developed here today. We will continue to solicit input from all APRS users in the Midwest and encourage other regional conferences, such as today's, to convene to debate the issues present before us now.

    To the issue of relocating APRS, we are in agreement with Steve Dimse, K4HG, that our purpose now is NOT to vote whether or not to move, but rather whether to support the proposal or not.

    We feel that the existing system, while not ideal, is workable at this point in time. The ramifications of advanced networks (such as those existing in Texas and California that are using previously existing networks leftover from previous packet development) attempting to relocate to a national frequency are a serious concern. We do not believe that it is necessary to "reinvent the wheel" nor do we feel that is appropriate to make changes to the system at this point in time.

    We agree that space operations are a valuable, precious asset to amateur radio particularly in light of threats to the security of amateur frequency allocations worldwide. We wish to express our support for the manned-space amateur radio operations and commit to help foster goodwill among all amateurs.

    We believe that it is premature to institute a national frequency change now in light of the potential for Congress de-funding I.S.S. However, should construction take place and it becomes obvious that the United States is committed to fly this station even without the financial support of other nations, we will be happy to cooperate to establish the best possible system which all can live with.

    Again, we state for the record that we represent only a small portion of the APRS users in the Midwest. We do not purport to represent anyone who has not given us permission to do so already. The opinions we are now expressing are by our mutual consent and are made in the fervent hope that we may lead by example.

    Finally, we wish to acknowledge the fact that there are many amateurs who are in favor and many who are vehemently opposed to the proposal for many reasons. We rejoice in the opportunity to take a leading role in these debates and encourage all amateurs worldwide to work together in a spirit of cooperation and enthusiasm for which amateur radio has a long-standing tradition.

    Respectfully, and on behalf of the Conference,

    James R. Duncan, KU0G

    Comments of Mike McCauley, WB5MYY

    Although APRS, coupled with other services such as RACES and the like, have the potential to serve the public good to a significant degree, the bottom line is that ham radio is a HOBBY. Given that a guy had the cash to pull together a APRS station from even the cheapest sources would clearly indicate that the individual has/had disposable income available to invest in a HOBBY.

    If one of my buddies in Dallas who was very active in RACES came to me at the beginning of Texas storm season and asked for some help to stay active in APRS because he was in financial touble and really wanted to do some public service work, I'd most likely give him 2 or 3 $20's for some rocks and then come over to his house (obviously, for free) to help him retune his set.

    On the other hand, I don't feel very given to send ANY amount of money to some central clearing house location so that some guy can use those funds for QSY expenses while he while he continues to save HIS cash for a new fill-in-the-blank (HT, HF rig, Bass boat, wide screen TV, WHATEVER) Further, I will GURANTEE that more of the cash from such a fund than ANYONE WILL WANT TO ADMIT TO will be passed out, WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, to persons whose "need" is questionable, if not flatly nonexistent.

    If said guy is so strapped for cash that his choices are either to put food on the table for his family or buy crystals so that he can stay active on APRS, I have no trouble stating that it is pretty clear that it would be best for him to put his HOBBY down for a while until he is in better financial shape. I have had to to this in the past, just as other ops that I know have. This is only good common sense.

    For the above stated reasons, I _STRONGLY_ feel that any QSY decision should be based purely on technical and "best use" considerations and, after input based on such criterion are evaluated by those mose active and knowledgeable in the mode, the decision should simply be disseminated via all possible channels as the new "law of the land", period. Further, for the afformentioned reasons, I feel that a "QSY fund" is a BAD idea.

    Comments of Don Rotolo, N2IRZ

    At the 1997 Digital Communications Conference in Baltimore, Frank Bauer, KA3HDO, presented what may be considered a radical idea by some: Move all APRS activity off of 145.79. However, this proposal makes good sense, and is backed by an unprecedented offer of help.

    The main reason for this proposal is to significantly reduce terrestrial interference with space-based amateur stations. The reasons are many, but the fact remains: 145.79 is a bad place for a highly active channel like APRS. If we want to help ensure the viability of space-based operations, as well as Amateur Radio as a whole, then we should accept this proposal and show the rest of the world that we really can cooperate for the betterment of the hobby.

    All in all, this is an excellent deal for APRS: First, instead of a de-facto channel for APRS, which isn't coordinated or protected in any way, we get a recognized 'home' for APRS. This will not only help the AMSAT folks, it'll give APRS a quieter, yet internationally recognized, channel. Second, AMSAT and TAPR have established a way for you to actually get money to help reduce or eliminate your out-of-pocket costs for the QSY. Since when has /anyone/ ever offered you money like that? Simply unprecedented.

    What a deal. Move to a quieter channel, recognized internationally, show the world we can cooperate, and someone will send you money to help. So, sometime on that first weekend in April 1998, turn the knob to 144.39. Oh, technical help is available, too, just ask.

    Lastly, if you or your club has the resources, consider a donation to the APRS QSY Fund, or offer your technical expertise or test equipment for tune-ups. In my area (Northern NJ), I'm willing to help anyone with technical questions, and I have a Service Monitor that is willing to travel.

    73, Don Rotolo, N2IRZ Packet Columnist, CQ-VHF n2irz@rats.org

    APRS QSY Position statement of Ralph Fowler, N4NEQ

    Owner of 3 APRS digipeaters and Two APRS Weather Stations in GA and NC. I speak for myself only, and not other area digi owners.

    I don't understand the rush, willy-nilly to switch! I've recently been seeing bulletins on the air from USER stations who only have to flip a dial to QSY. They are ignorant of the rest of the picture- the network they use every day!

    The 144.39 frequency has not even been verified as being clear Nation Wide yet. There are other users on or near the frequency now.

    I know of very few APRS home users who would be financially affected by a move- most of them will flip the dial. The real burden will be felt by the network operators.

    There is a major issue that NO ONE has even mentioned yet! That issue is QRM from APRS Digipeaters to VHF repeaters on the same site. Currently, we are well away from repeater input frequencies. Sure, we are close to some output frequencies now, but most of those repeaters were there first and we are used to having to deal with a little interference.

    The users of the repeaters starting at 145.11 and going upwards will not tolerate anything they feel resembles intermod, desense, or interference from an APRS digipeater newly switched to a frequency as close as 120 KHz from their input! The first squawk and they will be at our door! A pass cavity (as if I could wish that all APRS digis had them) may not even help- a 144.39 notch may be required on the 2M repeater's input frequency. In our network, moving to 144.39 would essentially kill our chances of ever having a Downtown location, due to 145.41 and 145.43 repeaters being nearby. One of them is even at the *same site*!

    I'm not opposed to having a unified, dedicated, clear Nationwide APRS frequency! It's just that a lot more looking and experimentation is ahead of us. Any move off of 145.79 in the near future would not be in our best interest!

    Incidentally, my calculated cost of QSYing is approximately $1000.00. This includes replacement of digipeater band pass cavity filters that are already stretched to get them to 145.79, crystals for 4 radios, and replacement of at least one that will not do 144.39

    Comments of Dr Thomas A Clark (W3IWI)

    Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:25:14 -0600 (CST)
    Subject: [APRSSIG:20324] QSY (in)sanity
    X-Comment: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio  APRS Special Interest Group
    I have been sitting in the background, watching the great (grate?)
    QSY debate. I have become amazed/bewildered/appalled at the mis-
    information and vitriol I have seen flash by. I finally feel
    compelled to offer some comments.
    First, lets look at the legal situation: The task of allocating
    frequencies on an international basis falls to the ITU (International
    Telecommunications Union). The allocations tables are ratified at
    world conferences held in Geneva; the most recent was WRC-97, held
    Oct.27-Nov.21 1997. Amateur radio constitutes only a minor part of
    the ITU's deliberations, and yet the ITU has seen fit to be quite
    generous to us. The ITU recognizes two different amateur services --
    the Amateur Radio Service and the Amateur Satellite Service. When
    two amateurs QSO direct, they are operating in the ARS; when they
    communicate via a satellite, they are ASSes. ITU allocations are
    made on a one-country, one-vote basis. Historically, the ITU's
    decisions are ratified by the US Senate as an international treaty.
    On an international, world-wide basis, the ARS and ASS are allocated
    144-146 MHz. In some parts of the world (USA and Canada included),
    the ARS is additionally allocated 146-148 MHz. Thus we have a 4 MHz
    wide 2M band, while Europe and Japan have to squeeze all their 2M
    operations into half as much spectrum space.
    Now, in the USA the FCC has a 4 MHz chunk that belongs to the amateurs
    (except for the satellite operations in the ASS, which are confined to 
    the international 2 MHz wide band). Based on requests from amateurs,
    they have allocated the bottom 100 kHz to CW, and given 144.1-148
    to all modes. They further allocated the 144.5-145.5 and 146-148 MHz
    portions as available for automatic repeater operation. They directed
    the amateur community to perform their own spectrum management in the
    assignment of specific frequencies within these allocations. 
    [ In the spectrum management community, there is a big difference 
      between the words allocate and assign. Allocations are broad, 
      general legal "walls". Assignments are akin to the specific 
      placement of furniture within these walls. ]
    Now lets look at the assignments: As a parallel to the ITU, amateur
    radio has its own International Amateur Radio Union. Like the ITU,
    the IARU is a "one-country, one-vote" organization, with the national
    society (ARRL for the USA) holding that position. The IARU includes
    as one of its charters, international band-planning. In general, when
    an issue only affects individuals in one country, the IARU avoids the
    issue. In Europe, where one can travel a few hundred km and pass thru 
    4 countries, and where the 2M band is only 2 MHz wide, the IARU
    debates are hot and heavy.
    The USA & Canada are blessed by having sizes of thousands of km and a
    full 4 MHz at 2M. In the early days of setting up a 2M spectrum 
    management hierarchy, allocation details were viewed as a local
    problem, with "cell" sizes comparable to the coverage of a single 2M
    repeater EXCEPT for the "DX" activities (EME, Meteor Scatter, 
    Satellites etc., where the international pattern was followed). This
    gave rise to local repeater councils handling all the details for
    the "local" "turf" that they "owned". Repeater councils had the task
    of coordinating repeaters, and simplex activity was relegated to the
    "gaps" between the repeaters.
    All this pre-dated packet activity. Here we found the need for more-
    than-local coordination of long-haul networks that were able to use
    simplex (i.e. half-duplex) slots. Though the 1980's, packet activity
    grew at a rate roughly comparable to the spread of AIDS. Packeteers
    were viewed by the repeater mavens as uncontrolled anarchists. By and
    large, the repeater councils washed their hands of the matter. The
    ten channels (20 kHz spacing) from 144.91 thru 145.09 overflowed with
    BBSs, WANs, keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs, DXClusters, etc.
    Here in the Balto/Wash area of MD/VA/DC, local usage only gave us the
    5 slots from 145.01 thru 145.09 and channel congestion was horrendous.
    We began working with TMARC (the local repeater council) and it was
    decided that packet activities should expand, picking up 15 channels
    in the 145.51 thru 145.79 range; some packet activity in the 147.5 MHz
    range was curtailed; a few existing AM users were asked (and agreed)
    to move. 
    Since I had a foot in both the packet and satellite communities, and 
    since I was one of the people who was doing the channel assignments,
    and since I saw the need for "elbow room" for experimentation, I put
    the top-most 145.79 MHz channel into our local band plan marked as
    "experimental -- not for permanent services". This gave a place for
    some of us working on better-than-Bell202 modems a place for testing
    AND insured a guard-band between the 145.800-146.00 international
    satellite sub-band. The manned-flight activities were in the doldrums
    because of the Challenger disaster, but we KNEW they would resume.
    In 1992, Bob Bruninga approached me with his proposal to try using
    unconnected  datagrams between low-powered stations to establish
    a "cellular" system for emergencies. He wanted to test the concept
    in AMRAD by using the scheme to pass coordination info during some
    foot races. I said "Sure, Bob -- that sounds like a valid experiment
    and a neat idea. Why don't you plan to use 145.79". Little did I know
    that his "little experiment" would evolve into APRS, which would 
    undergo an epidemic and anarchistic growth pattern! If only I could
    reset the clock!
    I tell this history to refute the argument "APRS has been here 
    forever"; the total time scale for anything like "squatters rights" 
    is ~5.5 years. Also, as one of the "framers of the constitution" who 
    "established my inalienable right" to 145.79, the "original intent" 
    was that 145.79 was definitely not intended as a permanent assignment 
    for long-haul networking!
    Let me respond to some of the other comments that have been made. The
    ARRL is certainly a force in the spectrum management on 2M. As YOUR
    representative to IARU, they are responsible for the international
    coordination of the band. The existence and validity of the "DX"
    activities mean that, contrary to common wisdom, the coordination
    of 2M frequencies >>IS NOT<< simply a local issue. I have long felt
    that, when it comes to spectrum management issues especially related
    to packet radio's problems, the ARRL has been (and still is), a
    spineless, gutless organization which has a very rectal outlook. But
    they are MY spineless, gutless bastard! I was amazed/surprised to see
    that the ARRL Board decided it was time to step up to a real issue in
    their recent decision to assist with the coordination. And they did it
    in response to the initiative of Steve Dimse and Frank Bauer in less
    than 4 months since the DCC presentation. Truly amazing! Wonders never
    For those of you with concerns -- sure, there will be some unique local
    problems. In amateur radio, NOBODY "owns" a frequency. There will be
    some technical challenges, but we are supposed to show off our
    technical expertise as one of the justifications for "owning" 4 MHz
    of valuable spectrum that would bring several hundred million dollars
    if it were put up for auction.
    Lets drop the sniveling, the finger pointing, the vitriol, and try
    to get back to doing fun and useful things.
    73, Tom

    Reprinted from PSR #65

    APRS Frequency Change

    Greg Jones, WD5IVD

    If you are an active APRS user then by now you have heard and hopefully have read the information concerning the potential APRS frequency change. There will be more in depth information presented later in the PSR, but let me put my spin on the issue.

    The issue of APRS and other packet users on the 145.79 frequency and Amateur Radio Man Spaced usage has been an issue for more than just the last few weeks. With the introduction of the ISS (International Space Station) several years ago and as amateurs within AMSAT and other groups worked on getting an amateur radio station on board the issue became more important. While the closeness in frequency between MIR/SAREX/ISS and APRS operations has been a bother to each other -- no proposals over the last four years was really acceptable to even put forth beyond simple discussion. Recently, things have changed. With the release of a satellite sub-band in the US that wasnıt usable in other parts of the world, the option of relocating APRS and other amateur digital operations on 145.79 to an area that should not have anyone else operating within it is now more than possible -- allowing a single frequency for all away from lots of potential interference issues.

    Many ask, why doesn't MIR/SAREX/ISS move ? Why should all of us (APRS) move ? This is easy to answer, but sometime hard to grasp. Just think about how hard it was to find a frequency in your local area to do something recently for APRS ? Some found it to be a problem and others didn't. The issue of something that orbits around the earth in about 90mins compounds the problem enormously. Most of the problems for MIR/SAREX/ISS is that other parts of the world have much smaller segments in which they can operate. Region 1 and 3 have exactly half the 2 meter space we have in Region 2. Thus, the current frequency selection that we find man spaced missions using is really the only one they can use. (see Figure 1)

    Figure 1: Region 1,2,3 band usage on 2 meter. Note the size of each.

    A few weeks before the deadline for papers for the ARRL/TAPR DCC, Frank Bauer, VP of Man Space Operations at AMSAT, approached me with a paper concerning the issue. I immediately put Frank in touch with Steve Dimse, K4HG, to discuss the issue for its inclusion into the Friday APRS Symposium (first National APRS meeting now that we look back at it). During that time Steve and Frank discussed and began to get closure on certain issues and the current proposal. This is what was presented at the DCC and is available in full from TAPR APRS Freq Change web pages (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/aprsqsy.html). After three years of looking at different concepts, this proposal works. While it is not prefect for everyone, APRS and satellite person alike -- it solves the problem and has big pluses for everyone involved. Frank's paper on the web site outlines the pluses and minuses of the proposal and Iıll let that article speak on this issue. If you want a paper copy, contact the office.

    What has to be weighed into this potential relocation is the benefit to the ARS (Amateur Radio Service) as a whole. The FCC is convinced that no group in the US can agree on anything like this -- sure would be nice to disprove them on this for once. Also, anything we can do as a small pocket of activity within the entire amateur radio hobby that benefits the high-profile man space related activity -- __HELPS US ALL__. Having a few hams/astronauts on the ISS operating ham radio will do more in the next 10 years to keep our frequencies in place then any new technology that we invent, deploy, or use. What we can all do to promote, experiment, or whatever pales to what the amateur radio Man Space programs can accomplish in the next 10 years. We have to take the long view on this issue, not that it will cost us all a little money now to do this. We have to think about having ARS around in 50 years so that future generations can enjoy it.

    As Steve Dimse has pointed out, the issue could be about a lot of things -- but it comes down to that of moving from the current frequency to the new one. We have to leave our axes at home and not in other peoples heads as we debate on this topic.

    I know that many of you out there in APRS land have emotionally bought into the current frequency selection via either fights over getting the frequency coordinated (when all it needed to be done was have it recognized), spending money and time building systems, or lots of other issues involved when building and growing something. I have done my share of building repeaters, digital networks, and lots of other things --- it comes down to the fact that frequency moves are a fact of life in a hobby that is RF based. Nothing should be or can be permanent. Frequency reuse and change has to be the issue. What is best in this situation is to at look at the move more on the international scope and its potential for big payoffs in the future.

    The current proposal, while many are still asking lots of questions, is the best I have seen in three years now. Frank Bauer and Steve Dimse have done an excellent job in merging all the necessary issues into something that now has a chance to happen.

    Like any good proposal that is evenly balanced. We all win something and we all lose a little along the way. While from the single view point of APRS it seems one sided -- it isn't. It is very balanced for everyone involved. If there was another way to do this -- then I think we would have already presented it to someone. I have read thus far many new ways to correct the problem since the initial presentation at the DCC, but they all suffer from the same problems that we saw in the past.

    Take the time to read in detail the papers that Steve has pointed to as reference materials. Take the time to understand issues outside our IARU region with regards to frequency allocations. The issue is an international one for the ISS and a regional one for us. The proposal leverages off that fact and makes it possible for everyone to benefit.

    As Steve Dimse, K4HG posted, "I think this is a great opportunity for APRS to gain visibility and respectability, not to mention a true nationwide channel which we can share with Canada. It also has the potential to make us look very selfish if we don't compromise. Please think about this seriously, and if you don't like it, try to come up with constructive alternatives."

    Greg Jones, WD5IVD

    TAPR Board of Directors Positions Statement

    1) TAPR, in support of its APRS SIG and the organizations many APRS users, recognizes that APRS is a vital and exciting facet of amateur radio.

    2) TAPR supports the experimentation of APRS through various amateur radio satellites and the International Space Station.

    3) TAPR endorses the concept of a APRS-QSY Fund and will help setup and administer such a fund when the time becomes necessary to facilitate the potential QSY of APRS U.S. infrastructure.

    4) TAPR approves a donation of $500 to support the QSY initiatives when the fund is established.

    APRS QSY Update - January 21st, 1997

    TAPR is pleased with the results of the ARRL BoD meeting. While this is a big step forward, it is not a guarantee. The ARRL has not coordinated APRS on 144.39. They cannot do this, any more than any other body can. However, the League's support will make it easier to deal with regional and local groups should a conflict arise. The TAPR questionaire will remain open for several more weeks in order to give everyone a chance to express their opinion.

    In reference to Jim Duncan's post on setting specific dates for the QSY, we do not plan on doing this. We feel each area should decide when is the right time for themselves. We do believe that each area should be making that decision as soon as possible, and doing it's best to notify their users. Digi owners that are interested in moving should beginning looking more specifically at their requirements. TAPR will work on getting more current information regarding location and frequency of digis, and this system will remain after the QSY, providing a resource for travellers to obtain frequencies of APRS in their destinations. More information regarding the process will be announced shortly.

    Once the QSY fund is established, we will be setting specific dates and procedures for the reimbursement process. When these are avaliable they will be posted to the TAPR website, as well as here on the SIG.

    AMSAT BoD Position Statement

    The AMSAT- also agreed (in cooperation with the Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR) organization) to help an ongoing effort aimed at minimizing the impact of moving a large number of current Automatic Packet Reporting Systems (APRS) users off of 145.79 MHz. The Board agreed to donate up to $500 to a fund to help defray needed expenses of various fixed frequency APRS node operators in finding another "home" for their APRS operations in the USA. If the shift to another frequency eventually proves acceptable the APRS community, it would help resolve one of the last remaining issues in clearing 145.80MHz for worldwide use by MIR, SAREX, and ISS.

    ARRL Board position statement on QSY

    Full information on the Board meeting can be found at arrl.org. Refer to ARRL Bulletin 8 ARLB008 From ARRL Headquarters Newington CT January 20, 1998.

    Whereas, the ARRL recognizes that APRS and SAREX/ARISS are vital and exciting facets of Amateur Radio, and

    Whereas, the ARRL recognizes the unique needs of APRS and SAREX/ARISS for nationwide frequencies, and

    Whereas, the ARRL supports the experimentation of APRS through various Amateur Radio satellites and the International Space Station, and

    Whereas, TAPR and AMSAT-NA have endorsed the APRS/Manned Space alliance and the "APRS QSY Activity" and have each pledged up to $500 to the "APRS QSY Donation Pool,"

    Be it resolved that the ARRL endorses the concept of an APRS/Manned Space compromise as a mechanism to share frequencies in the crowded two-meter band to minimize interference. Moreover, the ARRL pledges a donation of up to $500 to support the APRS QSY initiatives once the fund is established.

    Results of APRS QSY information

    Digi Owners and Users
    Respondents (486)
    Digi Owner (146, 30%)
    User (253, 52%)
    Not Provided (87, 18%)

    Are you willing to QSY to 144.39?
    Percentage by allPrecentage by just Digi Owners
    (227, 47%)
    (69, 47%)
    (94, 19%)
    (26, 18%)
    (18, 4%)
    (6, 4%)
    (90, 19%)
    if everyone else does
    (25, 17%)
    (25, 5%)
    (13, 9%)
    (24, 5%)
    definetely not
    (7, 5%)
    (8, 2%)
    don't care
    (0, 0%)
    (0, 0%)
    Not Provided
    (0, 0%)

    The following stations have completed the APRS QSY information.

    APRS QSY Responses

    Name Call City, State QSY to 144.39? assistance from QSY fund? donate to QSY fund? WIDE digi owner? total costs involved ? crystal controlled radios Comments
    Bob BruningaWB4APRGlen Burnie ,MD willingly No 250 Yes- Yes 10-
    Keith SproulWU2ZNo Brunswick, NJ definitely No 50 Yes- Yes 7Comment
    Mark SproulKB2ICI-, - definitely-- -- Yes 7Comment
    Greg JonesWD5IVDAustin, Texas definitely No 25 No ---
    Steven DimseK4HGSummerland Key, FL definitely No300 Yes - No -
    Bo KirkN3OZBSeverna Park, MDdefinitely No----Comment
    David G BorcherK7NGTucson, AZ definitely No 25 -- Yes 1Comment
    Doug WetzelK7IPSeattle , WA definitely No 25 Yes- Yes 1-
    Ken E. NicholsKD3VKGaithersburg, MD definitely No 100 No- No Comment
    Clayton H. OwenAA3JYKimberton, Pa. willingly No 25 Yes0 Yes 1Comment
    Stacy HagertyN9XPPHamilton, Indiana definitely No 25 Yes0.00 Yes 2Comment
    Mike McCauleyWB5MYYDallas, TX don't care No 0 No- No Comment
    Evhen TupisK2IVHolley, NY definetely not No 0 No- NoComment
    Neil LauritsenKA3DBKClearwater, FL if everyone else does No 0 -- Yes 1Comment
    Samuel LynchKC7JRUScottsdale, AZ definitely No 100 -- Yes -
    Knut FinnevoldenN1QKPEnfield, CT if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 1-
    Tom RandallKB2SMS-, - willingly No 25 No- No -
    Micheal MarshallW2HELansing, NY definetely not No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Doug WoodruffKM4HYLaFayette, GA willingly No 0 YesNONE No Comment
    Tom RichardsonKA1WZUDurham, NH definitely No 25 Yes- No Comment
    Clinton PeeblesVE7KNLSalmo, B.C. definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Melvin VyeW8MVAkron, OH definitely No 0 No- No -
    David KaplanWB0WNXSioux City, Iowa if everyone else does No 0 Yes- No -
    Cap PennellKE6AFESanta Cruz, CA definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    Robert FroelichKA9MOMVilla Park, Illinios definitely No 25 No- No -
    James DuncanKU0GKansas City, MO definetely not Yes 0 Yes$300.00 Yes 10Comment 1Comment 2
    Frederic ClarkeW4OKWCalifornia, MD if everyone else does No 25 Yes- Yes 1-
    Garvis Johnsonw6ikrSanta Clara , CA definitely No 25 --- -
    Steve CaesarNH7CWest Carrollton, Ohio definitely No 100 Yes- No -
    Jacques VOISINKD4TWBOrlando, FL don't care No 0 No- No -
    BILL HUTCHINSKB6CYSCypress, Ca. maybe No 0 No- No Comment
    Jeffrey AngusWA6FWIGardena , CA willingly No Other $10 Yes$0 Yes 2Comment
    John BlowskyKB2SCSRonkonkoma, NY definitely No 25 Yes$0.00 No Comment
    Mike Walkerva3mwMississauga, ON definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Steve SmithWB9HBHGreenfield, IN if everyone else does No- -- Yes 1-
    Tom WeedenWJ9HMadison, WI definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Chuck RevilleK3FTBaltimore, md maybe No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Jim NeelyWA5LHSAustin, TX definitely No 50 Yes- No -
    Roy BostN5TAMGranbury, Tx definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Thomas DoakW3SOOAudubon, PA definitely No Other $5-- No -
    Ken WolfeN3MQVPenndel, PA definitely No 0 -- Yes 1Comment
    Richard GarciaK4GPSJupiter, FL if everyone else does Yes 25 Yes$600 Max Yes 2Comment
    Ernest BaldiniK4RBDCocoa Beach, FL don't care No 25 No- No Comment
    Tim BarrettWD9BIVPittsburg, CA definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Frank KiehnerWB3AVZApopka, Fl definitely No 0 No- No -
    Arte BootenN2ZRCBronx, NY maybe No Other What I can-- No -
    Barry RimmerKG2LBSummerland Key, FL definitely No 25 No- No -
    James Hayeskd4olfOrlando, FL if everyone else does No 0 No-- Comment
    Jon Wondrelykf4ieqLargo, Fla definetely not No 0 No0 No -
    Howell Rasorkd4rcyPensacola, FL undecided No 0 No- No -
    Roderick HartWA3MEZRandallstown , MD definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 1-
    David MartinW4DSMBrewton, Al. undecided No 0 No-- Comment
    Robert YorkKF4FFNChunchula,AL., AL. definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Ron WetjenWD4AHZSarasota, Florida definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Orlando EsquinaldoKD4HOULakeland, Florida willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    WILLIAM HAYDENWY8OPace, Fl undecided No 25 No- No Comment
    Robert ClineWB2NGZPonce Inlet, Florida willingly No 0 -- No -
    Russell Chadwickkb0tvjBoulder , CO if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    James AllisonKB1UWFlorence, MA definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Richard GillKQ6EFSunol, Calif willingly No 50 No- Yes 2-
    Ken SwaggartW7KKEFoster City, CA definitely No 25 No- Yes 2Comment
    richard howardve3dohdunnville, ontario definitely No 25 No- Yes 1Comment
    Demos DoulouKR4USPinellas Park, Florida definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Daniel LatourelleKT4DDCantonment, Florida undecided No 0 -- No -
    Lloyd FrinkKC2AGLWappingers Falls, New York definetely not No 0 -- Yes 2Comment
    Perry RehN9MUCElgin, Il definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Paul StumpN0LRFOttawa, KS definitely No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Joe LoewyKB4FOFort Lauderdale, FL definitely No 0 -- Yes 1-
    Ron ParsonsW5RKNAustin, TX definitely No 0 No- No -
    Wes JohnsonKD4RDBPort Wentworth, GA if everyone else does No 0 Yes0 Yes Comment
    Norman DavisWB6SHIShingle Springs, CA if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Dave AronovitzK1LPILos Gatos, CA definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Howard ColemanW6HQASimi Valley, CA definitely No 25 No- No -
    Don HoffmanKC7YJAPortland, OR definitely No 100 No- Yes 2-
    JIM VOIGEKB9KOZCARY, IL undecided No- No- No -
    Huey FourquetN1HFMiddletown, RI willingly No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Louis Cruzn4ldgMiami, Fl definitely No 0 Yes$0.00 Yes 2Comment
    Don HuckabyN6YYKGrass Valley, CA definitely No 25 No- No -
    Evans MitchellKD4EFMlakeland, Fl willingly No Other 20.00 Yes- No Comment
    Michael NieKB8VMX (ADDED INFO)Cincinnati, OH undecided No 0 Yes- No Comment
    James HolleyKB8VDTDefiance, Ohio if everyone else does No 0 Yes- No -
    David DunsterVE5DGDRegin, SK if everyone else does No 25 -- No Comment
    Rick SzpyrkaWB8TIFBloomfield Hills, MI definitely No 25 No- No -
    Phil KeysKJ7ETPort Hadlock, WA maybe Yes 25 No- Yes 1-
    David SloanN0EOPColorado Springs, CO if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    Steve RichbourgKO4TTCantonment, Florida undecided No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Don RotoloN2IRZMontvale, NJ definitely No 25 No- Yes 1-
    Tom McGeeka1toxBraintree, MA if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    Mike HardcastleKB7TRJBoise, ID definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    John Wilsonkn4hxPlantation, Fl if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 3-
    Tom RogersKR4OLMacon, Ga if everyone else does No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Leslie EdmondsKB5ZUYRichardson, TX definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    Hector FigueroaKE6VRLCovina, CA willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Charles Elquistw6jifDeFuniak Springs, FL willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Gordon FullerWB6OVHFair Oaks, CA definitely No 25 Yes- No Comment
    John ReynoldsAD4DOCrawfordville , FL maybe No- -- No -
    Jay MillardKD1LYDarien, CT definitely No 25 -- No -
    Paul CampbellKC4VBTThonotosassa, Florida definitely No 0 No- Yes 1-
    Brian WaligorskiN6RZRAnderson, CA willingly No 0 Yes- Yes 1-
    Ralph MilnesKB2WBVChatham, NJ definitely No Other 500 if Tax deductible No- No -
    Jamie DeanKE4HTMMorganton, NC definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Andy ruppen4xcvrutherfordton, n.c. definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Louis CobetK6MDHOakland, CA definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Tom PrestonKQ6EOCitrus Heights, Ca definitely No Other No- No Comment
    George BaustertW3BLWPinellas Park, Fl if everyone else does No- No- No -
    George BurtonK7WWA/W6PKTWillits, Ca definitely No- Yes- Yes Comment
    David HarrisN6UOWFremont, CA definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Kenneth MirabellaKM6YHBrea,, CA definitely No 0 Yes$0.00 No Comment
    Mike DeesN3EZDEllicott City, MD definetely not No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Robert BurtonKD4YDCFayetteville, Al. definetely not No- -- No Comment
    Kurt JaussKF6HJOSelma, Ca. definitely No 25 No- Yes 1Comment
    Mike FaccioloKB8IFXMilford, Ohio definitely No Other $10.00 Yes- No Comment
    Mark WardellN8LHGOstrander, Ohio maybe No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Tom KinahanN1CPEFramingham, Ma definitely No 25 No0 No 0Comment
    Tom MortellKO6YJCosta Mesa, CA definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Dill FoutsKD4EXQMossy Head, Fl. undecided No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Dale ReedW8ABZNorthfield, Ohio definitely No 25 No0 No 0Comment
    Bob NimmerfrohKE6MDJWoodland Hills, CA if everyone else does No 0 No0.0 No -
    Frank Schmidtn8uviGreenville, Mi willingly No 0 No- No -
    Brian McCarthyN7TUQPeoria, AZ definitely No 25 No- Yes 3Comment
    JOE DELEEKB6JCTRUCKEE, CA definitely No 25 Yes- No Comment
    Jon BrazeltonN4VRNKenmore, WA don't care No 0 -- No Comment
    Mike SacullaWA6FQMStockton, CA willingly No 25 --- -
    Arthur MartinN2QAELong Valley, NJ definitely No 0 Yes0 No N/AComment
    Robert Wininghamkc5ejkDallas, TX definitely No 100 No- No -
    Clifford BoandWA0JTWColumbia, TN definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Francis Feeneywb2ems-, - willingly No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Mark RennebaumKC7KMPChandler, AZ maybe No 0 -- No -
    James TempleKF4ICZLouisville, KY definitely No 25 No- Yes 2Comment
    Tom ShawW7HOFBrewster, WA definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Marc PichetteVA3DRVOttawa, Ont. definitely No 0 No- Yes 2-
    Brian KlierN0QVCFaribault, MN if everyone else does No 0 Yes$0 Yes 1Comment
    Frank ClaudeKB0NYNPlymouth, MN willingly No- Yes- No Comment
    Harold HansonWB6MFVManteca, CA. definetely not No- Yes- No Comment
    Wayne JaussN6TBQSeaside, CA definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 2-
    Paul KnupkeKR4YLLargo, FL undecided No 25 No- No -
    William BlohmKC7JSDNampa, ID definitely No- No- No Comment
    David GudewiczKB9KDAGrayslake, IL definitely No 0 --- -
    Carl DiPaoloW7EXHEugene, OR definitely No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Mark HumphreyKE3XYChester Springs, PA willingly No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Ron HutchisonW4ETMurray, Ky if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Rich WeinkaufN8QLTfarmington, MI definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    John AckermannN8URBellbrook, OH definitely No 50 -- Yes 1-
    Barry Winklerkc6wyaPittsburg, Ca. if everyone else does Yes 25 Yes$195.00 Yes 3Comment
    Byron Smithwa6ylbExeter, Ca definitely No Other unknown Yes- Yes 1Comment
    john mc hughku4gymiami, fl if everyone else does No 0 -- No -
    John HarmonN4OKLCharleston, WV definitely No- No- No -
    Ken HallKE6HPWRolling hills Estates, CA willingly No- No- No -
    Chris ShustakN1AUPHolden, MA definetely not No 0 No-- Comment
    Roland Hoffmankc6jpgFontana, CA definetely not No 25 No0 No Comment
    John KrausKC4ZGQMacon , GA definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Larry MollicaWA6FSJOrange, CA if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Michael YoungWB8CXOMunroe Falls, Ohio if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    Bruce DouberleyWB4JNEWalhalla, SC undecided Yes 0 -- Yes 3Comment
    Joseph TravisN6YPCLa Mesa, CA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Christopher Schwabkd4phsLargo, FL if everyone else does No 0 -- Yes 1-
    David TaylorW8AASColumbia, MD definitely No 0 -- Yes 1-
    Lee DahlenKD4TQZIron Station, NC if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    Joe CarterW9JCNovelty, Ohio definitely No 25 -- No -
    Lindsay CollinsK1JYWashington, NH willingly No 0 Yes- No -
    Jon TworkKB8RSAScottville, MI definitely No 0 No- Yes 3-
    Stephanie SteeleKC7DBAFruitland, Idaho if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 2-
    Juan Angelo MarquezKE6WUDClaremont, California if everyone else does No 25 No- No -
    Stephen PriorN3UYIShrewsbury, PA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Arthur ClemonsN8BLKPhiladelphia, PA definitely No 25 -- Yes 1-
    Gary MemoryN7BRJAPO, AE definitely No 0 No- No -
    John GerhartKD4RMLLand O Lakes, Florida if everyone else does No 25 No0 No Comment
    Gary RothrockWB5RFAShawnee, KS maybe No Other Yes0 Yes 6-
    William WebbAB6OROrange, CA if everyone else does No 0 No0.00 No -
    Phil WeberKH2EIGMF, Guam definitely No 25 Yes- No -
    JOE LACHACZKF6NHDCAMARILLO, CA definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Roger GradyK9OPOKokomo, IN definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Will Marchantkc6rol-, - definitely No 25 No- No -
    Alton TeagueN5PSPOdessa, TX willingly No 75 No- No Comment
    Henry CordesAA4QIJacksonville, Florida definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 2-
    Karl WeirN2NJHCheektowaga, NY definitely No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Paul ZitoN1RHNShelton, CT willingly No- Yes- Yes 2-
    Jerry MaloneyN8JYDSwartz Creek, Mi willingly No 0 -- No Comment
    Kenneth JohnsonKC4YOZCharlotte, NC if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    Steven KingKC6WCHGainesville, FL willingly No Other don't know-- No -
    Keith Tarwaterwa4kjhSevierville, Tennessee maybe No 0 Yes- Yes 6-
    Matthew Stennett7J6CATTokyo, - definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Alan UnangstWC7RPrescott, AZ if everyone else does No 0 NoN/A No N/A-
    Michael HullKD4DLTLITHONIA, GEORGIA if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 2Comment
    Ralph FowlerN4NEQKennesaw, GA maybe Yes 0 Yes$1000.00 Yes 1Comment
    Craig LemkeAB0GDFort Collins, CO if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Jimmy BurkhalterKB5WIOAmarillo, Texas definetely not No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    victor algerke4lkqbroadway, va definetely not No 0 No-- -
    Ken BassK4EVHGreat Falls, VA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Walter HolmesK5WHHouston, Texas if everyone else does No 25 Yes- No Comment
    James KeckN6HNYSanta Clarita, CA if everyone else does No 25 No- No -
    Keith WentzelKD4ITICharlotte, NC if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Roger AttwellWN7MEverett, WA if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 3Comment
    Charles RichardW4HFZGales Ferry , CT willingly No 0 No- No -
    L BradleyW1WXSBeaufort, SC willingly No 0 No- Yes 4Comment
    Donald MaziarzWY2VWarrenton, VA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Robert TarwackiAA2WMStaten Island, NY willingly No 0 No- No -
    Robert MorganWB5AOHAustin, TX willingly No Other share locally No- Yes 3Comment
    Christopher BurgardtKQ6JZOakland, CA willingly No 0 No- No -
    Bill DiazKC9XGLockport, IL definitely No- -- No Comment
    Larry VanderwaterN0BKBGreenfield, IA willingly No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Philip LeonardWV0T-, - if everyone else does No 0 Yes-- -
    Jerry EllaeserKI0HORiverside, MO definetely not No Other ? No- Yes 2-
    Frank KostelacN7ZEVLas Vegas, NV if everyone else does Yes 0 Yes$100.00 No Comment
    Chris NicholsonN9LLO-, - definitely No 0 Yes-- Comment
    Bob WalkerN4CUPlantation, FL definitely No 25 -- Yes Comment
    William WoomerN2THOLas Vegas, Nevada willingly No 25 -- No -
    Steven SinghoseKB7ZDDWoodinville, WA willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Stephen SchwarmW3EVEWrentham, MA if everyone else does No 25 No- No Comment
    Tommy EllisonKE4DGHEasley, SC willingly Yes 25 Yes200.00- Comment
    Anthony HickeyAB5QRHouston, TX definitely No 0 No- No -
    Mostyn Howells (Sr)VE3SJX & VA3SJXOSHAWA, ONTARIO definetely not Yes 0 No- Yes 2-
    Gary StandorfKB2YOXTinton Falls, NJ definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    robert hengleinkc5jzg-, - willingly No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Timothy CunninghamN8DEUHuntsville, AL definitely No 25 No- No -
    Michael HeskettWB5QLDHurst, TX if everyone else does No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Joe VilardoK3JVWest Chester, PA maybe No 0 No- No Comment
    George Deankc5kgeKaty, Tx willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Bruce PigottKC1USBedford, MA definetely not No- --- Comment
    Michael MarkmannVE4MJMWinnipeg, MB definitely No 25 No0- Comment
    Glen DoolittleN9WKSThird Lake, IL willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    JOHN LEONARDW9JBLDEKALB, IL willingly No 0 Yes- No -
    Justin ReedN0UJQMinneapolis, Ks willingly No 0 No- No -
    Robert TimbermanKD4LXBLake Worth, FL if everyone else does No 25 -- No -
    george kammerzell jr.n0zedaurora, co willingly No- Yes-- Comment
    William LeComteKB1DXBurlington, MA definetely not Yes 0 No$20 Yes 50Comment
    clyde mathewb4bdpwarner robins , ga if everyone else does Yes- No100.00 Yes 4Comment
    James RospopoKE4CONWoodstock, IL definitely No 25 -- No -
    Chris McKendryKH2PMBarrigada Hts, Guam definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    Tom CainWB8OUEPlano, TX definitely No 25 No- No -
    Bill YoungKB0UZQPlatte City, MO definetely not Yes- -- Yes 6-
    Stan HorzepaWA1LOUWolcott, CT definitely No Other TBD Yes- No -
    Aaron Heisekb9qwcNew London, WI if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    Bruce MartinKQ4TVHermitage, TN if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 2-
    - -wa4hei-, - definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    John (Bill) Haysw0omvDavenport, IA definitely No Other $10-- No Comment
    Richard Robertsn0rulWichita, KS definitely No 0 No0 No 0Comment
    Leland CarpenterN5VRNAmarillo, Tx if everyone else does No- No- Yes 1-
    Dave SchwartzVA3DGSWaterloo, ON definitely No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Steve D'Amelion1kmlBellingham, MA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Art Welchk7txLaguna Hills, , ca definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Jack PlumWX3PFishers, NY definitely No 25 -- No Comment
    Mark ElliottN9WSTPeoria, Il if everyone else does No 0 -- No -
    Roderick Hartwa3mezRandallstown, Maryland definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Bill Vodallwa7nwpRedmond, Wa definitely No 0 No-- -
    Richard WitteK6KMALong_Beach, Ca. if everyone else does No 25 No$65 ??? Yes 1Comment
    Edward ZimmerN0OKWSt Paul , MN definitely No 100 No- No -
    Paul DrothlerWO4USevierville , TN willingly No 25 -- Yes 3Comment
    Warner SchlerWA0PYWPlatte City, MO undecided No 0 No- Yes 2-
    Wilbur GollW0DELShawnee, KS undecided No- No- Yes 3Comment
    David CreekNH6BAEwa Beach, HI definitely No 0 -- Yes 1-
    Mark WheelerWB2ULRLaurel, MD definitely No 0 No- No -
    Ricky DavisN4VDEAnderson, SC if everyone else does Yes- Yes$30.00 Yes 2-
    Shawn DjernesN0PEUForest Hill, MD definitely No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Martin GaryW2MGDoswell, Va willingly No 0 Yes- Yes 2Comment
    George FiskK6TAMAptos, Ca. definitely No 0 Yes$100 Yes 1Comment
    hasan schiersn0anAmes, IA definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Theodore AntanaitisWA7ZZBPasadena, MD definitely No 50 No- No -
    Merle McCulloughN0VDRKansas City, KS willingly No 25 No- No -
    Ted Katzn3owmphiladelphila, pa if everyone else does No 25 No- No -
    James FrenchKD4DLALincoln Park, MI definitely No 0 No$0.00 No 0Comment
    - -KD6HNG-, - definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    David BolducKB9FBG-, - willingly No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Michael AllisonKN6ZTLivermore, CA definitely No 0 No- No -
    JOE LACHACZKF6NHDCAMARILLO, CA definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Roger RehrW3SZReading, PA definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    James OdomAD4CRVersailles, Kentucky if everyone else does No 0 YesN/A No N/A-
    Martin SchultzN9PPJEdwardsville, IL willingly Yes- Yes$80.00 Yes 4Comment
    jeff ruhnken9web-, - if everyone else does No 0 -- No Comment
    Ralph Lindbergn7bsnKeyport, WA definitely No 0 No- Yes 1-
    Clement RohrerNR3USelinsgrove, PA definitely No 0 Yes0 No -
    Don ClairKB0USFLakewood, CO willingly No 25 No- No -
    Jim BaremoreK5QQAlbuquerque, NM definetely not Yes 0 Yes175 No Comment
    Linda MullenAD4BLLynn Haven , FL definetely not No 0 No- No Comment
    Edward CoxK3SWJAustin, TX maybe No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Randy FarleyKC7HZEFruitland, Idaho definitely No 0 NoNA No -
    Earl NeedhamKD5XBClovis, NM undecided No 0 No- No Comment
    James WimanWD9ICGVilla Grove, Illinois definitely No 0 No- No -
    Doug McKinneyKC3RLPrunedale, CA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Nick KotchKF4BYAWinter Springs, FL if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Sydney ChiswellW2ICZCheektowaga, NY. definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Jim KernsN4PUQOliver Springs, TN if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    William SmithVE3JFJGoderich, ON definitely No 0 No- No -
    Scott ArnoldKC5RIEHattiesburg, Mississippi willingly No Other service Yes- No Comment
    michael conrodkb7zzslakewood, co definitely No- No- No Comment
    Dale SeaburgKG5LTBangs, Texas willingly No 50 No- Yes 2Comment
    Richard EbertN5TNJNew Orleans, La. willingly No- No- No -
    Joseph ThielN5SMNAustin, Texas willingly No 0 -- Yes 3Comment
    Thomas Mahaneykd4dkwSmyrna, Ga maybe No 25 -- Yes 3-
    Victor BolstadWB7OAFAirway Heights, WA definitely No Other 15 No- No -
    Robert ManakAA9JWWaukesha, WI definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    Carlos -kf4rrn-, - definitely No 0 No- Yes 2-
    Ron KramerVE3MXPort Colborne, Ontario definitely No- No- No Comment
    Michael PetryN3NYNLaurel, MD willingly No- No- No -
    Jerry RappelWW0EDavenport, Iowa definitely No 0 No- No -
    Larry VandewaterN0BKBGreenfield, Iowa definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Jack SnedecorN4ZIJColumbia, SC definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    John LewisKF4PQQMobile, AL don't care No 0 No0 No Comment
    Thomas BatesAA1NZLaconia, NH definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    William BlissWB6LPGHalf Moon Bay, , California definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    lee mcdanielwb4qojroanoke, va maybe No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Bruno HaineaultVE2EQ/W6San Marcos, California definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Theodore KatzN3OWMphiladelphia , PA willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    William PostN6HAVHemet, Ca definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    jerry dipietrok9gdstreamwood, il definitely No 25 No- No -
    Mark BenderKD6NOTLakewood, CA willingly No 0 -- No -
    Robert RadmoreN2PWPOlcott, NY definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Leonard RevelleN9IJGrayslake, Illinois willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Wayne TruaxKE6UWKPresidio of San Francisco, CA willingly No 0 -- No Comment
    John CavanaghKB4XFFalmouth, VA definitely No 25 -- No Comment
    Lloyd Plushkb0mqqLakewood, CO if everyone else does No 0 No- No -
    James KristKG8GESunbury, Ohio willingly No 0 -- No Comment
    Lee KissellKB9OBELawrenceburg, In willingly No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Paul WombleAJ4YHighland City, FL definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Mike RosenbohmN0GGUGraham, Mo willingly No- Yes- No Comment
    Mike BoyceK0COYKansas City, Ks willingly No- -- Yes 1Comment
    Bill KearnsWB6JARWildomar, CA willingly No 0 YesZERO No ZERO-
    John OlsonK6RFNLong Beach, CA willingly No 25 No- No -
    Michael YoungWB8CXOMunroe Falls, Ohio if everyone else does No 0 No- No 0-
    George HadleyN7SNINormandy Park, WA definitely No 0 No0 No Comment
    Chris EdwardsAE4XOMarietta, GA if everyone else does No 25 No- No Comment
    John HartmanWA3ZBaltimore, MD definitely- 25 No- No -
    Joseph HusseyW8RIKColumbus, OH if everyone else does No 0 -- Yes 1Comment
    Jim WarakoisW1KRUWest Roxbury, MA definetely not No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Robert AdamsW8BKOColumbus, OH willingly No- No- No Comment
    Paul SadowskiAH6LS-, - if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Richard Wrightai4lChickamauga, GA undecided No 0 No- No Comment
    Bob Evansw2/g3zfjSayville, NY definitely No 25 Yes0 No Comment
    David WhiteNV0OLee's Summit, MO if everyone else does No 25 No- No -
    Ed FisherN3HOO-, PA undecided No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Tom VanderMelKB8VEEMuskegon, Michigan if everyone else does No 0 Yes0 Yes 1-
    George Polandw8fwfSun City West, Az willingly No 0 No- No -
    Justin FrenchKE4HFXNorfolk, VA if everyone else does No 0 --- -
    David McCarthyKC7AYXScottsdale, AZ willingly No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Eric FrancisN8FYDWesterville, Ohio definitely No 0 -- No -
    jim hurrellve7hurSurrey, BC definitely No 0 No- Yes 1-
    Don PfisterKA0JLFOverland Park, KS definitely No Other some No- Yes 10Comment
    john FraneKC8DCPScottville, Mi. maybe No 0 No- Yes 2-
    Palmer GluntWB3AFLBrogue, PA definitely No Other 20 No- No -
    Brian BoccardiN2MPMNorth Brunswick, NJ willingly No 25 No- No Comment
    Mike CoxKI5DFOklahoma City, OK if everyone else does No 0 -- No -
    Darrell HaleN3KTPLaurel, MD if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    john dalinka0mygrochester, mn definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Samuel Nabkeyk8snGrand Rapids, MI if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 5Comment
    Lee BradleyW1WXSBeaufort, SC if everyone else does No Other ???? No- No -
    Raymond RischpaterKF6GPEBoulder Creek, CA definitely No 25 -- No -
    Todd PutmanN3TFMElkridge, MD undecided No 0 No- No Comment
    Ollie CooperN0KVCBeebeetown, Iowa definitely No- Yes$50.00 Yes 1Comment
    Mike KnappKB8UKPSt. Joseph, MI if everyone else does No Other $10 Yes- No Comment
    Ken Talbottke4rgGretna, VA if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 4Comment
    Lansing PughKK5VKAustin, TX definitely No 25 No- No -
    John DomblewskiN2OJYMiddle Grove, New York definitely No Other I own a 2-way shop and would be willing to help with tuning of others equipment Yes- Yes 1-
    Richard JonesKD4GNXVERSAILLES, Ky if everyone else does No- No- No -
    Jack Fetterkb8dpmarion, oh maybe No 0 No- No Comment
    Richard Kopsn2qhsLittle Neck, NY if everyone else does No 0 -- No -
    David SailerKB8PQZBelding, MI willingly No 25 No- No Comment
    Warren BoudrieAA2LQPittsford, NY definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    M. Pat CrawfordK5AHEBaton Rouge, Louisiana definitely No 0 Yes0.00 No Comment
    Robert WittnerKW0LFIrving, TX definitely No 50 No- No -
    Brian DeYoungKE4HORAlexandria, KY if everyone else does Yes 0 No- No -
    Robert BarronKA5WSSAustin, TX willingly No 0 No- No -
    Melvin VyeW8MVAkron, OH definitely No 25 Yes0 No Comment
    James DavidsonVE3TPZstratford, ontario if everyone else does No- No-- Comment
    Jerrold BillmyerN3SOKSykesville, MD willingly No 25 No- No -
    John HoltzKE6UIZHuntington Beach, CA if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Michael HavenerKE6FJTMurrieta, CA definitely No 0 -- No Comment
    Craig PattersonKC0CGFOlathe, KS definitely No 0 -- No -
    Randolph HammockKC6HURLa Crescenta, CA definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    Ray VaughanKD4BBMMiami Lakes, FL definitely No 0 Yes0 No Comment
    Bruce MicalesWA2DEUVerona, Wisconsin willingly No 25 -- No Comment
    John KerrVE3SVEBrampton, On definitely No 0 -- No -
    Frank Mondtn0smsJoplin , Mo definitely No 25 -- No Comment
    Gary RobertsKC7HHKLogan, Utah definitely No 75 No- Yes 1-
    Gary SandersWB0BZRLakeland, FL willingly No- -- No -
    Mark EndicottWB0NOONashville, TN willingly No 0 Yes- Yes 7Comment
    Jim LaughlanN2ETEYoungstown, NY definitely No 0 No- No -
    Wes Johnstonkd4rdbPort Wentworth, GA if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 2-
    William CoveyW1GTTEast Lyme, CT definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Greg SoderlingVE7SODNorth Vancouver, BC definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Mike MusickN0QBFOlivette, MO definitely No 0 Yes0 No Comment
    Richard HowardVE3DOHdunnville , on definitely No 25 -- No Comment
    tony dacresaa8eicincinatti, oh definitely No Other $10 No- No Comment
    Larry RichW1LROrange Park, FL don't care No 0 No- No -
    John JacobKC5GLGFort Worth, TX willingly No- -- No -
    Jim DonohueKO6MHLas Vegas, NV definitely No 25 No- No Comment
    Harold SmedbergWA8YLZCuster, MI. if everyone else does No 0 No120 Yes 6Comment
    Mark ConnerN9XTNBellevue, NE if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Doug Badekb8gvqCleveland, Ohio definitely No 50 Yes- Yes 12Comment
    Ronald ArmstrongVE2JORMontreal, Quebec definitely No 0 Yes-- Comment
    Don MurrayAE4BRPort Wentworth, GA definetely not No 0 Yes- No -
    Brian BeitlerKC3QBRobesonia, Pa definitely No 25 No- Yes 2-
    Charles ShipmanN4OBTLakeland, Fl willingly No 0 -- No -
    Larry PaganiWB2SOYWillingboro, NJ willingly No 25 No- No -
    RATCHFORD, JEFFREY S kc5jgvMARSHALL, AR undecided No 0 Yes- Yes 6Comment
    Bill DavisKG5IEFort Worth, TX definitely No 0 No- No -
    Fred EdwardsKF4MJJNaples, Florida undecided No Other undecided No- No Comment
    Daniel VelezW4DJV (ex N4WZR)Virginia Beach, VA if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Gregg BabishVE5GWRegina, Saskatcthewan definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    George HellebrandW2FLN -, - willingly No 25 -- No -
    Ken IrishW8JVPOakton, VA willingly No 25 -0.0 No Comment
    Harry BurfordKA0TTYCoppell, TX definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Bruce SchaefferKA2ZVZEast Brunswick, New Jersey definitely No 0 No- No -
    Rex LehmanWB8TDGDayton, Ohio willingly No 0 No- No -
    Chris BellKD6ZWRLake Forest, CA willingly No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Rodney FowlerK2ADJ-, NJ definitely No 0 -- No -
    Robert ChimelWA3LWRClarks Summit, PA willingly No 25 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Larry KeeranK9ORPHudson, IL definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 6Comment
    albert whiten0tvjolathe, ks definitely No 0 No- No -
    David ByrumKA4EBXLargo, Fl. willingly No 0 -- No -
    Steve KopeckyKF2WAAverill Park, NY definitely No- -- No -
    Robert Pasqualewd9bbeAlgonquin, IL if everyone else does No 0 -- Yes 2Comment
    Rich FiliaAA1ZNovato, CA definitely No 25 No-- -
    Geoffrey DickWA4IKQWinter Park, FL willingly No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Al ZelnaN3KAEOlyphant, PA willingly Yes 0 No50 Yes 2Comment
    Steve GunselN8MYAMedina, OH definitely No 0 No- No -
    Mark DooreN3NTQSilver Spring, MD definitely No 0 Yes- No -
    Thomas GriffinN7ZKLBeaverton, OR definitely No 25 No-- Comment
    Roland McCormickKF4LMTSavannah, GA if everyone else does No Other 5-10 No- No -
    John Tripp, Jr.N2SNLPittsford, NY definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    LeRoy EllisW6QJLompoc, CA. willingly No 0 Yes- No -
    Steve MeuseN1JFUEast Bridgewater, MA definitely No 100 Yes- No Comment
    Jason GreeneN1IICConcord, NH if everyone else does No Other undecided-- Yes 1Comment
    Tedd DodaVE3TJDBaden, Ontario definitely No 0 Yes- No Comment
    Gerald StueveKE4NFJHerndon, VA willingly No- No- No Comment
    Milt KlingspornN9WSZMilwaukee, WI willingly No Other undecided No- No -
    Jim GifredaW8MAPWest Liberty, OH undecided No 0 Yes- Yes 2Comment
    William StrongN2VRGMount Laurel, New Jersey if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Darrell SperryKA4TARJacksonville, Fl definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 2Comment
    Michael KapolkaN3XIHDallas, PA willingly No 0 -- Yes 1-
    Randy AllenKA0AZSMoraine, Oh willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Mark EwellKC5IZNLawton, OK willingly No 50 No- No -
    Martin Girouardva3dvrSt. Thomas, Ont. definitely No- -- No -
    Steve WilsonAC6DROakland, CA if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 1-
    Robert FinnW3RFLompoc, CA definetely not No 0 No- No -
    Bob Boehmn8exf@juno.com-, - willingly No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Patrick BunsoldWA6MHZEl Cajon, Ca if everyone else does Yes 0 No$20 Yes 1-
    John MooreK1DEMilford, MI. if everyone else does No 0 Yes- Yes 1Comment
    Jeff WardNT4Y-, - undecided No 0 Yes- No -
    Bart DayN6UXSLong Beach, CA willingly No 50 --- -
    John BartonKA1EKSMillinocket, Maine undecided No 0 Yes- Yes 2-
    Roger BaileyN6ZOPHaysville, Ks. definitely No 25 No$0.00 No -
    Rick TiltonN4WYKWilkesboro, NC maybe No 0 Yes000 No Comment
    Frank Warren, JrKB4CYCNorth Plainfield, NJ willingly No 25 No- No -
    David CooleyN5XMTWinston-Salem, NC if everyone else does No Other Unsure at this time No- Yes 1Comment
    Eddie FoustWD4JEMLawrenceville, GA undecided Yes 0 Yes800 Yes 2Comment
    Robert Wilkinsn6friBerkeley, Ca definitely No 0 No0 Yes 1Comment
    Ron Malinowski, Jr.N9QGSStreamwood, Illinois maybe Yes Other $5-$20 Yes 1-
    Verne Buland-Grayslake, Illinois if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 2Comment
    Michael EdwardsKE4YGTMelbourne, FL if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Jon AndrewsK1IMDMattituck, NY if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 4Comment
    Nicholas SaboKC8CFIWapakoneta, Ohio definitely No 0 No- No -
    James JarvisWD4EKABristol, Tn definetely not No 0 Yes200.00 Yes 3Comment
    Austin Prestwood, Jr.W2HOBBurlington, NJ willingly No 0 Yes-0- Yes 6Comment
    Richard EllisKC2ASWGlendale, NY definitely No- -- No -
    DENNIS BECKNERWD8SBOmorristown, tn if everyone else does No 0 No- No Comment
    Bernie OrtmannN6UBOPeachtree City, GA definitely No- -- No Comment
    James GaudetW1UPMason, N.H. undecided No 0 Yes 130 Yes 1Comment
    John MoyersN4QEAKnoxville, TN definetely not No- Yes-- Comment
    Charles WhickerK4ITVBristol, VA if everyone else does No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    Henry Pfisterw4cccNormandy Park, Washington definitely No 25 -- No -
    john dentwa4mejhilliard, fl definetely not No 0 No- No Comment
    William PowellN3PZBIndustry, PA willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Thomas BeachN1OPOWest Hartford, CT undecided No 0 No- Yes 1Comment
    John SchwallW8JAQMonroe, OH definitely No 0 No- No -
    Matt HarrisKD4PBSHolly Springs, NC willingly No 0 No- No Comment
    Joel MichelloKQ4ETVa. Beach , VA definitely No 0 Yes$0.00 No Comment
    Jerry NettervilleKQ4MSRaleigh, NC definitely No- Yes- No -
    Pat KilroyWD8LAQBowie, MD definitely No 25 No- No -
    Darryl SmithVK2TDSIngleburn, NSW definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    GLENN MILLERN6GIWJOSHUA TREE, CA undecided No 25 Yes- No -
    Den SpiessW2DENClifton, NJ definitely No 0 No-- -
    Guy Storykc5goiDenton, Tx definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    Bruno HaineaultKF6QDPSan Marcos, California definitely No 0 No- No -
    Gill St.OngeKA6CYDVictorville, CA willingly No 0 Yes- Yes 1-
    Michael BaileyWD5CWZOnalaska, Texas definitely No 0 Yes- Yes 3Comment
    Mark CaseyK1MAPHampden, Mass definetely not No 0 No- No Comment
    Donald WadeK4DRWHunsville, AL definitely No 0 No-- Comment
    Mike IszakVE3XLSPort Colborne, Ontario definitely No 0 No- No Comment
    James SizemoreN8QNOKettering, Ohio definitely No Other Depends.... what will the fund be used for? No- No -
    Brad ClarkKK5ZKLakeview, AR definitely No 0 No- No -

    General Comments from APRS QSY Questionnaire

    This page contains all the various comments submitted with the APRS QSY Questionnaire.

    Comments of Bo Kirk, N3OZB

    Questionnaire is over kill in detail. Does my address affect the strength of my vote? It's in the call book.

    Comments of David G Borcher, K7NG

    APRS is a mobile-oriented system - and mobiles, who may be moving hundreds or thousands of miles, should NOT have to keep changing frequencies as they now do. ONE channel, continent-wide, for "user" operations is the ONLY viable answer to making APRS universally accessible and convienient to those who need it most: mobile stations. APRS trunking and Internet<>APRS channels absolutely can (and should) be locally or regionally coordinated on any available channel. There should be standardized APRS channels on every band from 40M to 23cm!

    Comments of Ken E. Nichols, KD3VK

    I'm encouraged that, for the most part, everyone is approaching this topic with an open mind and an attitude to try to solve the problem. It appears to me that most are realizing the importance and strategic (and coordination) advantages to moving as an entire group to the new frequency.

    Comments Clayton H. Owen, AA3JY

    When are we seriously considering the move to "a" new freq? Are we gradually moving or all at once on a proposed date in the future?

    Comments of Stacy Hagerty, N9XPP

    Having a Nationial/International common frequency would be a great benefit to the APRS community. It would enable mobile users to travel anywhere in the US and Canada with an economical single channel dedicated APRS radio and access the APRS "network". The move will allow for a more efficient use of the band by everyone. Lets move on with this. My TAPR membership coming soon.

    Comments of Evhen Tupis, K2IV

    144.39 is too close to narrowband sub-band to allow me to use it effectively. I will QSY to another band and establish a bridging remote base to link the two, so the 2-meter qsy issue doesnt affect my operation at all.

    Comments of Mike McCauley, WB5MYY

    Not in favor of the move...co-ordination nightmare. All we need is some of the coordination bodies to refuse to let the hams in their juridiction use the frequency and we will end up splinyerted worse than we are now.

    Comments of Mike McCauley, WB5MYY

    Although APRS, coupled with other services such as RACES and the like, have the potential to serve the public good to a significant degree, the bottom line is that ham radio is a HOBBY. Given that a guy had the cash to pull together a APRS station from even the cheapest sources would clearly indicate that the individual has/had disposable income available to invest in a HOBBY.

    If one of my buddies in Dallas who was very active in RACES came to me at the beginning of Texas storm season and asked for some help to stay active in APRS because he was in financial touble and really wanted to do some public service work, I'd most likely give him 2 or 3 $20's for some rocks and then come over to his house (obviously, for free) to help him retune his set.

    On the other hand, I don't feel very given to send ANY amount of money to some central clearing house location so that some guy can use those funds for QSY expenses while he while he continues to save HIS cash for a new fill-in-the-blank (HT, HF rig, Bass boat, wide screen TV, WHATEVER) Further, I will GURANTEE that more of the cash from such a fund than ANYONE WILL WANT TO ADMIT TO will be passed out, WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, to persons whose "need" is questionable, if not flatly nonexistent.

    If said guy is so strapped for cash that his choices are either to put food on the table for his family or buy crystals so that he can stay active on APRS, I have no trouble stating that it is pretty clear that it would be best for him to put his HOBBY down for a while until he is in better financial shape. I have had to to this in the past, just as other ops that I know have. This is only good common sense.

    For the above stated reasons, I _STRONGLY_ feel that any QSY decision should be based purely on technical and "best use" considerations and, after input based on such criterion are evaluated by those mose active and knowledgeable in the mode, the decision should simply be disseminated via all possible channels as the new "law of the land", period. Further, for the afformentioned reasons, I feel that a "QSY fund" is a BAD idea.

    Comments of Micheal Marshall, W2HE

    Just read Stan's column in the Dec QST.

    1. APRS WAS on 145.79 first. AMSAT's been hopping all over the place (unilaterally and with out coordination) looking for "Their" frequency. I find it extremely hard to believe that the frequency APRS (US) has occupied from the beginning has suddenly become the "one and only" frequency AMSAT can't live without.

    2. AMSAT is the group trying to push the APRS users off of this freq. They are the ones who want us to QSY. What have they offered Quit Pro Quo? SQUAT! I have zero interest in AMSAT, MIR, OSCAR and especially the ISS. The ISS will be the biggest money pit the American taxpayers have ever seen! What percentage of MIR's budget is being provided by the American taxpayers? AMSAT has nothing of interest to offer me.

    3. Steve Dimse, K4HG wrote "I think this is a great opportunity for APRS to gain visibility and respectability.." I would say the APRS is quite visable and when has APRS NOT been respectable?

    4. Some of the people writing these columns would like to appear non-biased but after reading a few of the stories it's quite obvious to me these people are pro-QSY.

    5. I will not go quietly.

    Comments of Doug Woodruff, KM4HY

    It seems that any costs associated with a move to another frequency should be absorbed by the person/organization who/which owns the equipment. I think most crystal-controlled equipment is cheaper than synthesized equipment so it seems unfair that those of us who have more invested NOW should have to subsidize those who have not spent as much as we have yet.

    We all make daily choices about our equipment. These choices have varying consequences and benefits -- whether short-term or long-term.

    If one chooses to invest a little more in the short run to save time and hassles later then that person should not be penalized because some other person chose to invest less in the short term-----thus gambling that more would have to be spent later.

    Comments of Tom Richardson, KA1WZU

    Any freq., as long as it is used in all of North America. I would like to see more information about creating or rebroadcasting differential signals or otherwise improving accuracy.

    Comments of Clinton Peebles, VE7KNL

    I will be changing in the spring of 1998 regardless. Of course, I'm in Canada and 144.39 is the frequency used here anyway.

    Comments of Cap Pennell, KE6AFE

    Several Northern and Central California digipeaters will QSY to 144.390Mhz on December 1, 1997. A few will stay on 145.010Mhz for now. Time will sort this out. We hope to be able to connect Northern and Southern California on 144.390Mhz. Currently, we cannot use VHF between Northern and Southern California because Northern and Central CA are on 145.01 and Southern CA is on 145.79.

    Comments of James Duncan, KU0G

    I've already made my view well known about the proposed move. I am strongly against it but am willing to move IF (and only IF) I don't have to go to additional expenses to the expense out of my own poor pockets. I believe that this is all VERY premature and am taking a "wait and see" attitude until I see that construction actually begins on the International Space Station.

    Comments of BILL HUTCHINS, KB6CYS

    I have been operating a packet WX station on 145.01 MHz since 1984, and have many users that connect for my WX information from all over the world. I only send out APRS formatted for APRS users to display. I also run a WX related PBBS on the same frequency. Since APRS is a sideline for my station, I plan to remain on 145.01. I understand that there are some digi's that will repeat APRS beacons from 145.01 to the new proposed frequency. That would be nice if they stay up. There is mention of my station in Stan's book (Gateway to packet radio). I have added many upgrades since the text appeared in the 1989 edition.

    Comments of Jeffrey Angus, WA6FWI

    I still can't for the life of me understand why so many hams have to whine like stuck pigs when someone mentions changing frequency (or PL in the case of repeaters.) It's the cost of ownership, it comes with the ability to advertise your callsign. I run Motorola Mitreks on VHF and UHF. To professionally change frequencies it costs roughly $300 per radio. To swap out crystals in a pair of TX/RX channel elements it costs about $50-60 if you do it yourself, plus retuning. These are the same people that sold thier $3000 radio for $1500 to buy the "new" ome buy the same manufacturer. I guess after taking a $1500 loss, I would whine too.

    Comments of John Blowsky, KB2SCS

    It would be great if APRS could end up with a Nation wide freq including Canada

    Comments of Mike Walker, va3mw

    Being Canadian, obviously, my opinion is biased. We have little or no problems on 144.390. Part of NY state is already on 144.390 as well.

    Comments of Tom Weeden, WJ9H

    I am in favor of the move, as long as it can be coordinated on a nationwide basis.

    Comments of Chuck Reville, K3FT

    The recognized national base of system owners, operators and users occupy 145.79 mHz. The cost in time, money, and energy to move the mass of operations off 145.79 and onto 144.39 is going to be monumental. Not to mention the emotional stress brought about by the feeling that the individual is again being forced to submit to the will of the organization rather than the organization being subject to the will of the individuals who make up the organization. Many opinions have been expressed that it is a 'done deal' and this is simply a method to make it 'look good'. Right or wrong, it's a factor that bears consideration when making the decision.

    The SAREX/MIR/ISS can easily accomodate a move to 144.39 mHz as most of their users will be synthesized and can easily switch. They have not yet developed an installed base of owners, operators, users all who have a great investiment in time, energy, and money in the current network.

    Since they are in the planning stage, it's easy for them to plan to be on 144.39 mHz which accomodates their needs and allows peace within the ranks. No matter how 'democratically decided' the issue is, you are going to again cause ripples of discontent with people who again (sometimes rightly) perceive that the greater good of the organization is of paramount concern and that they are but cogs in that wheel.

    Comments of Roy Bost, N5TAM

    Any move to pick a 440 freq? When I get my KPC-4 repaired I'm planning a 2m-440 gateway. 440 packet is\was big in this area and there are 440 packet stations not being used now that might be used if a gate were avaliable.

    Comments of Ken Wolfe, N3MQV

    Most people on APRS have synthesized rigs. If changing the freq. would resolve the problem once and for all......do it. But, don't expect to change it again.

    Comments of Richard Garcia, K4GPS

    Costs are going to be a difficult thing to guess at since the people effected by this are mostly the owners of crystaled equipmnet or digi owners that have commercial filtering at their sites. I would venture to say that no one has ever attempted to crystal or tune equipment that low in the band since packet is very rare there. The little bit of packet that has occupied nearby frequencies has probably been packet clusters that use amateur grade equipment.

    Untill someone takes their equipment off line and actually makes the changes it is not going to be known if the stuff will work and that is the scary part! My Maxxar 50 for instance put out 50W before mods on the 154 range. At 145.79 I could only get a maximum of 20W and .25uv of sensivity. I hate to think what it will be at 144.39. I would suggest someone do some research for a "low cut" commercial surplus radio that is available in large quantities for group purchase (also the crystals) for those digi owners that cannot get their radios to work. The one problem is that "low cut" is rare since the only users were the federal agencies (Air Force) in the 143-148 region and we are talking about a move probably 1 year away. What is available now in the market will change week by week. Good luck with the survey. Rich K4GPS

    Comments of Ernest Baldini, K4RBD

    I thought this was a hobby, not a hardship!

    Comments of Tim Barrett, WD9BIV

    I have a 2meter remotes base system at the same site as by packet. The move would give me more seperation and would help with decense. I hope we move soon. Thanks for all your support.

    Comments of James Hayes, kd4olf

    I do not want to QSY. However, if everyone else does then I will have no choice if I still want to participate in APRS.

    Comments of David Martin, W4DSM

    I do not see that we should move freq. I do not see that we should have a national freq thru gateways so everyone can see where everyone mobile is. Think of the bandwith that will take, whether it is radio or internet.

    Comments of Robert York, KF4FFN

    TNX for the Priviledged Link to some truly generous people with incredible resorcefulness.TNX for your words and ideas to develope a common frequency.I'm very new to this mode(since 12/95) and assumed that 5.79 was a true National simplex for catching someone unnone are at distance via the efficient digi net. I felt someone had let me down when I discovered there were as many as 4 others;within our own hemisphere.Common folks let's go with the flow on this thing and develope a complete,unified net.Let's show the Satellite Folks how supportive we are of their existance on 145.79.Let's not squeeze the folks who may offer us a ride.W4IAX-7 has been upgraded as of November 27,1997 to a PHG of 60w-600'-NA;on 144.39.We're here;come on over TNX&73Bob/KF4FFN

    Comments of Ron Wetjen, WD4AHZ

    Let's do it! It's easier for us to move, than having SAREX/MIR/ARISS QSY. Obviously, wherever they go, someone is not happy. If we move ON OUR OWN, we'll have our own dedicated frequency, be perceived as the "good guys", plus we'll gain some points with the SAREX/MIR/ARISS folks, who may possibly be willing to run APRS experiments in the future. It's a win-win situation for all of us, especially if we take the initiative on our own, and it's not "suggested" or "forced" upon us.

    Comments of Orlando Esquinaldo, KD4HOU

    Although APRS was on frequency first, I think that we should try to work things out. I have no objections to changing frequencies as I am only using a mobile 2 meter rig and a MFJ-1274. It's the others that will have expensive refits that need to be asked.

    Comments of WILLIAM HAYDEN, WY8O

    We here in NW Florida are very concerned about the urgency to make this change. Is there a time frame involved ? As I understand it, the change is to support the Intl Space Station some years down the road. If this is the case we don't need to RUSH to 144.39 right away. I will retain an open mind on the issue. But it seems there are many that are trying to DRIVE the change immediately. If it becomes necessary to move, lets do it with a long lead time.

    Comments of Russell Chadwick, kb0tvj

    I might be willing to commit a small amount to the APRS QSY fund, once I was satisfied that the frequency change was certain and that it was being managed in a satisfactory way.

    Comments of James Allison, KB1UW

    No problem in moving. Just want to get it going. Since Canada is already there it is only logical to go there also.

    Comments of Ken Swaggart, W7KKE

    I think we should expedite the move on the "use it or lose it" principle.

    Comments of richard howard, ve3doh

    Will be a start of a good network, Lots of room for development.It will take a while , as long as we are sure the freq is for APRS only, Only time will tell!

    Comments of Lloyd Frink, KC2AGL

    144.390 is not a suitable answer, Here APRS will be QRM'ing weak signal operators, Notably those operating AM, where the calling freq is 144.400. Since there is no way for a voice op to decode AX .25, there is no way for the voice op to know who they should contact to complain. Perhaps another band should be investigated for a "national APRS" freq. 70 cm?

    Comments of Perry Reh, N9MUC

    It is my opinion that the QSY fund should not even exist. It should be up to the individual digi owners to cover the cost for the QSY. Being a digi owner/operator/maintainer is a voluteer functiom, TAPR or the SIG did not demand that the digi be put in place, so the digi owner should cover the cost to QSY if they want to. If they choose not to QSY, I am sure there is another volunteer in the same area that would be more than happy to install equipment on the new freq.

    Comments of Wes Johnson, KD4RDB

    Can't belive that AMSAT wants us to move from Packet subband, to a weak signal OSCAR area. Welcome the chance to have a national 2m freq for APRS.

    Comments of Norman Davis, WB6SHI

    I don't like the artical in QST that seemed like it was the only survey and everyone should move because he said so.

    Comments of Dave Aronovitz, K1LPI

    APRS should me moved to the 900 mhz band ASAP. Converted 900 mhz cordless phones will make excellent mobile "Mic Encoder" devices. The 2m band is already too crowded and TAPR should be leading the charge into the 900 Mhz & up range.

    We shold also petition FCC to open up 900mhz to all classes of licensees for any digital mode. Infact, maybe it should be a digital only band which will reduce the sharing problem we will be facing. Vocoders could be used to provide the few audio channels that might be required.

    Comments of Huey Fourquet, N1HF

    I feel each user should finance his or her own QSY. Relay and Wide digis should be financed by local users and clubs.

    Comments of Louis Cruz, n4ldg

    Thanks to Brothers to the Rescue, a Humanitarian Search & Rescue and None-profit organization, for the sponsorship of Amateur Radio in South Florida. For more info contact: Louis, N4LDG

    Comments of Evans Mitchell, KD4EFM

    keep the frequncies alive and away from Lil LEO's hands!

    Comments of Michael Nie, KB8VMX (ADDED INFO)

    I doubt I will change frequencies on the WIDE digis. If the move is made, I will probably take them off the air.

    Comments of David Dunster, VE5DGD

    As a Canadian Ham we have set aside 144.39 as the national frequency for APRS. In Regina however, until APRS is more active, we are using 144.91 (local Packet Network). We fully intend to move to 144.39 after activity picks up here in Regina. As well, due to problems with desensing on 2 meters, we plan to use a frequency in the high end of the 440 band for APRS trackers. Other plans include an APRS cross-over between 144.39 and the 440 band. All in all it would be great to have our good neighbours to the the South join in on a "National" standard for APRS.

    Comments of Steve Richbourg, KO4TT

    I see no reason to move from within an established subband for misc and eperimental to one listed for oscar - are we going to change the band plan every time someone comes up with a new project - there is no guarantee that we can use this freq because there are no designated or reserved frequencies other than repeater pairs and we even have trouble with those - I think that the users that are on the edge of their band should move toward the niddle if they are having problems or pick another spot since there are so few users who can talk to them anyway.

    Comments of Tom Rogers, KR4OL

    My receiver and transmitter are PROM controlled. I have already burned new proms for both and am ready for the change if it comes. I will get set up on new frequency the same way I got set up here; without financial assistance. Life is about change, change brings opportunity, I welcome opportunity. 73! de Tom , KR4OL Section E.C. Georgia Section ARES

    Comments of Leslie Edmonds, KB5ZUY

    I'd like a national coordinated freq. for APRS use. Do we need two frequencies, one for 1200 baud and one for 9600? Might as well plan ahead.

    Comments of Hector Figueroa, KE6VRL

    I don't think that a monies should be dispersed haphazardly. I think individual user areas should set up a local commitee to disperse funds, only to those stations that have a positive effect on the local network. There are many Wides in the Los Angeles and I am not certain that all are necessary. I would be willing to contribute to a local fund, but I am not certain about a nationwide fund.

    Comments of Charles Elquist, w6jif

    Future digi operations at the Walton County EOC.

    Comments of Gordon Fuller, WB6OVH

    We have been testing 144.39 here in the Sacramento Valley since thye proposal was announced. Most stations in the area like the new freq. and all have qsy'ed to the new freq. We are able to switch to 145.010 and contact the San Francisco Bay Area at any time however, we use 144.39 every day.

    Comments of Jamie Dean, KE4HTM

    I'm ready to change today. Would be very willing.

    Comments of Andy ruppe, n4xcv


    Comments of Louis Cobet, K6MDH

    If the ARRL will gets behind the move to 144.39, it will be less painful for everybody. It will be very useful for everybody in the USA and Canada to be on the same "calling" frequency. However, I do not like the origin of the move, namely a small meeting held in Israel rearranging frquencies on a world scale (MIR) then everyone else has to tag along. 73's

    Comments of Tom Preston, KQ6EO

    Already using 4.39 in this area. Usage seems to be split about even between 145.01 and 144.39 at this time.

    Comments of George Burton, K7WWA/W6PKT

    I have the necessary equipment to retune my own radios, duplexer and pass cavities. I will not require any outside assistance for that work. I am ready to QSY anytime! Northern California is using 145.01 for APRS. I am also running a packet node on 145.05. The new freq will make my life much beter.

    Comments of David Harris, N6UOW

    I'm interested in helping QSY the few WIDEs in my area, if they need technical, or monetary assistance. I'm a long-time packeteer (PPRS, ex-TAPR), as well as long-time APRS user. I'm also an NCPA board member, representing APRS interests, and an APRS project lead. (http://www.baker-to-vegas.org)

    Comments of Kenneth Mirabella, KM6YH

    There is a small problem that has to be worked out in Southern California. ATV has 144.39 coordinated as simplex for ATV repeater coordination. We are trying to work with TASMA the coordinating body to get this frequency cleared. It could take 1 year or more to make this happen. Ken, KM6YH

    Comments of Mike Dees, N3EZD

    I'm not in favor of the move, move MIR off the sub-band edge instead.

    Comments of Robert Burton, KD4YDC

    I am the AEC for ARES/NWS (GA SKYWARN) here in Georgia. I am oppose to the QSY because we are coordinated with 93 counties (that are covered by the responsiblity on the NWS in Peachtree City, Ga.) in the state of Georgia for APRS on 145.79. This has been a LONG project that has taken several years to pull together for a "workable" packet freq. We are still working out the the bugs on the whole system but the wx service has shown an interest in the remote wx sites and we are also getting interest from stations in Alabama. If you are familar with the wx in the south, much of our wx comes from Alabama. I am not against the move but THE ENTIRE NETWORK IN THE SOUTH NEEDS TO MOVE AT THE SAME TIME. Not many of the digi owners are wanting to move in this area. If they the GA SKYWARN stays. So will alot of the stations here in the state of Georgia. I hope things can be worked out. Thanks, Robert Burton KD4YDC AEC ARES/NWS in Georgia (GA SKYWARN)

    Comments of Kurt Jauss, KF6HJO

    Central California has already moved to 144.39.

    Comments of Mike Facciolo, KB8IFX

    My main reason for wanting to change frequency is to get away from the intermod on 145.790. I live near a paging tower and at times I have s9 noise level.

    Comments of Mark Wardell, N8LHG

    I have no problem moving to the new frequency. To keep up with future needs, these changes are needed. The only problem I see is moving closer to my 2 meter network nodes "may" cause a larger intermod problem, and force cavity re-tunes.

    Comments of Tom Kinahan, N1CPE

    The Frequency change has no effect on me or the 2 digis that I oversee. If it helps other users of the band, I'm for it.

    Comments of Tom Mortell, KO6YJ

    The 78's Amatuer Radio club http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/5251/ would like to use 145.78 for simplex conversations. The use of 145.79 by packet interfered. I think the national coordination of the APRS frequency is more important than our use of a simplex frequency, but if APRS is considering moving , I am all for it.

    Comments of Dill Fouts, KD4EXQ

    I will not follow APRS away from 145.790

    Comments of Dale Reed, W8ABZ

    Considering purchasing an MFJ Data Radio for mobile. Would require appropriate xtals. Currently using an MFJ-1270C TNC w/ Radio Shack HTX-202 and Radio Shack 30W amplifier for W8ABZ and an MFJ-1270B TNC (with firmware upgrade) and HTX-202 for W8ABZ-8 (mobile). Am attempting to build standalone mobile tracker W8ABZ-8 consisting of MFJ-1270B (upgraded FW), DeLorme Tripmate GPS and HTX-202 (later to be replaced with MFJ data radio). Any help in interfacing the Tripmate to the MFJ TNC would be greatly appreciated!!! Like I said, I'm a NEWBIE at this and haven't met the local APRS network gurus. Will meet soon, and will keep plugging away at the Tripmate. Will let you know what I get working!

    Comments of Brian McCarthy, N7TUQ

    I think this is very worth while effort. I just wish it would happen faster. I am in the process of building up another mountain top digi and it would be nice to only have to do this once.

    Comments of JOE DELEE, KB6JC


    Comments of Jon Brazelton, N4VRN

    I answered "don't care" to question 1, only because I am not set up equipment-wise for APRS yet, so I'm really not effected. I would only hope this is a "one time" deal, since I can see the difficulty of moving frequencies for those with crystal-controlled equipment.

    Comments of Arthur Martin, N2QAE

    If the proposed QSY will provide an expanded use of APRS (USA + Canada + California + others) AND put outer space activity in one area hopefully more suited to the needs of space operations, that will satisfy me.

    Comments of Clifford Boand, WA0JTW

    No problem. I'll go "where the action is", and I enjoy APRS. Also, when I can't afford to participate in a particular phase of my hobby, I don't participate, until funds become available. After all, it IS a hobby.

    Comments of Francis Feeney, wb2ems

    I appreciate the work in trying to get a clear frequency for the space operations which are enjoyed by so many. I do dabble in APRS as well and I expect to make the move without difficulty once the ball gets rolling.

    Comments of James Temple, KF4ICZ

    Lets do it only if a nationwide coordination has taken place.

    Comments of Tom Shaw, W7HOF

    I plan on putting up a WIDE digi in the near future and will be getting a commercial radio (GE, motorola, etc.) for it. Tuning some commercial radios down to 144.39 could be a problem and digi owners should be aware of this before purchasing radios or crystals. Tom W7HOF

    Comments of Brian Klier, N0QVC

    The state of Minnesota currently is not willing to make the switch. A lot of our equipment (Wide Area, Weather Nodes, and such) are PROM-Controlled radios, and would require a new PROM, with reprogramming. Also, no VHF interconnectivity between other local APRS areas is currently available, and we have KF0ZH, in Minneapolis, to serve as a GATE to 10.151. Our goal is to provide an operational network in case of emergencies. Our network is working great, and the frequency is well known if it needs to be used. We will consider the changeover when the operation is in its final phases, to be sure we won't have to change again down the road.

    Comments of Frank Claude, KB0NYN

    The transition would be very painless for us.

    Comments of Harold Hanson, WB6MFV

    Note that I also own a voice repeater that is on the same site... It is on 145.17 Mhz out and 144.57 input. 145.39 is just to close in frequency to protect the voive repeater rcvr. I now have a commercial duplexer and rcvr on the voice repeater and a commercial cavity on the digi. The digi runs 35 watts, and I am taking a 3Db loss due to the cavity. This will work on 145.01 only due to the fact that we are using the advantage of the curves on the duplexer od the voice repeater and both xmtrs are very clean from white noise. Good grounding and some antenna seporation also helps. The only selution is to move the digi and I really don't have the time and the mony to do that. The hilltop does not cost anything where we are.

    Comments of William Blohm, KC7JSD

    I have no problems with QSY to 144.39 for APRS, and would welcome the added advantage of better coverage via a shared APRS frequency with Canada. Further, I feel that the sooner the QSY is accomplished, the lower the cost will be as fewer new users will have any need to QSY later on. With my setup, and most in my area, QSY is merely a matter of adjusting a dial. However, if a concerted effort to change the frequency over is drawn out over a long length of time, then it may well begin to require more than a simple dial change as we look into setting up permanent digis operating from mountaintops. This area as yet has no such APRS digis, but interest is there to eventually establish them. The longer the wait for a formal APRS band plan, the more likely there will be additional resistance to moving. 73 de Bill, KC7JSD

    Comments of Carl DiPaolo, W7EXH

    Due to MIR, I dropped my motion to have Oregon set .79 aside for APRS. I can not support any thing that may add to the interference problems. It looks like there is a lot of support for .39.... As Chair of the Oregon Region Relay Council, I would be willing to carry the ball to get a good freq for APRS on the books in this state. We in the coordination community need know what the needs, desires, and options are for all modes. Then we can ALL plan with a better degree of certainty. Yesterday I got my first GPS rx and have been an old hand at nodes, so move over guys, new kid on the block.

    Comments of Mark Humphrey, KE3XY

    In general, I agree with the QSY proposal -- IF -- the new frequency can be coordinated (to the greatest possible extent) nationwide and weak-signal operators understand and accept our plans to operate just above the CW/SSB frequencies. I wouldn't want to go through this process again! We also need to discuss and publicize a reasonable schedule for the transition to minimize confusion. Having just returned from a trip to Europe, I am more aware of the underlying problem in finding suitable channels for spacecraft. We are quite fortunate to have an extra 2 MHz in our 2m band, so perhaps it's appropriate that we take the accomodating position. If the details can all be worked out, let's do it...

    Comments of Ron Hutchison, W4ET

    I am not a regular user of APRS since I use my rig for other operations. When I do get on I set APRS as Wide,wide. AS far as I know, I am the only station on APRS in Western Ky. West of Ky Lake.

    Comments of Rich Weinkauf, N8QLT

    I live in the Detroit area and the 4.39/5.79 frequency difference has forced APRS users to make the choice to only listen to Canadian or American traffic. I have recently put together a gateway that pipes activity immediately between the two frequencies to bridge the gap and link the two APRS communities. Despite this, I would still rather consolidate all activity on 144.390 and disassemble the gateway. I look forward to the eventual agreement to move to 144.390 in an orderly manner, and fully support the change. Rich, N8QLT.

    Comments of Barry Winkler, kc6wya

    we went a lot to get on 145.010 and this move for us dose not make any sences

    Comments of Byron Smith, wa6ylb

    The Maxar 50 is a tracker vehicle. The WA6YLB-3 digi is already on 144.39 - its a MCX100 VHF radio (Synthesized with all three packet channels in use in CA - 145.01, 145.79 and 144.39)

    Comments of Chris Shustak, N1AUP

    144.39 is currently being used for weak signal 2M AM work in the northeast. APRS data chugging down the frequency will make weak signal AM work impossible. Why aren't we considering moving to a 147 simplex frequency that most people rarely use? Thanks

    Comments of Roland Hoffman, kc6jpg

    The reason I'm not in favor in QSY to 144.39 is that I'm an Amateur Television operator utilizing 426.25 MHz. 144.39 is the 2 meter com- munications link for the Southwestern Area (AZ, CA). I have a strong interest in maintaining the 144.39 band plan for ATV since I do utilize this frequency as well as many other ATV simplexers in the south- western area. I'm planning to join the TAPR organization as well as the APRS SIG! Thanks for your interest and hope we can find an alternate frequency for APRS on 2 meters! 73 Roland KC6JPG

    Comments of John Kraus, KC4ZGQ

    Keep up the good work I to see cooperation in solving problems. 73 KC4ZGQ John

    Comments of Larry Mollica, WA6FSJ

    I'm for the move ONLY if it means the following can be achived: 1) There will defintetly be one APRS 2m channel coordinated nation-wide. (IMHO, this alone is enough reason to move.) AND 2) We don't step on anybody else's toes by using the proposed channel. Let's do it right; I don't want to have to do this again.

    Comments of Bruce Douberley, WB4JNE

    A big problem "will" be, as a voluntary change, there will pockets of users who can't or won't change. The fragmentation will still exist. Since my commercial equipment was designed for the higher end of the band and works well were it is. It is the low end problems will have to be examined carefully to find a solution before I "screw up" my equipment. I don't think a move is necessary, but I will take a wait and see position at this time.

    Comments of Joseph Travis, N6YPC

    I find it difficult to believe (or understand) why it is such a big deal for APRS to QSY to a different frequency. Is there really that many people unwilling to cooperate? I am involved with both satellites and APRS and even though I checked the $0 offering box, I would in fact donate money to a local digi owner if he said that it would be too much of a burden financially. I don't see the need to establish a national fund to accomplish this and I believe that by doing so, the problem is being completely blown out of proportion. 73 de Joe n6ypc@amsat.org

    Comments of Stephen Prior, N3UYI

    I trust the amateur community will go with the proposal. The more we can move as a group the better. If the QSY will aid in communications all the better. In this day of the Internet the utility of packet radio and the amateurs that support APRS will only be enhanced. We should all remember that the internet is a very "fragile" system that is dependent on alot of infrastructure to operate. The APRS infrastructure is a diverse and widely distributed system that is maintained by many independent units. It is this diversity that when communications are disrupted packet radio and other amateur communications willl be a valuable asset.

    Comments of John Gerhart, KD4RML

    Would not be a problem for me to change frequency. Only modification would be to re-tune antenna.

    Comments of JOE LACHACZ, KF6NHD


    Comments of Alton Teague, N5PSP

    I have several commercial radios that I might be interested in converting to 2 meters once some other projects are out of the way. Also, I have a LARGE box of Repco UHF (450 mhz) commercial radios in various states of functionality, if there is ever any plans to put anything on the 70 cm band. They are 2 watt rigs and should tune all the way down to about 430 mhz. And another batch of Maxon DM-0530 UHF radios - dittos on any 70 cm activity on APRS. They might be useful for backbones or something if anyone is interested - so far it's a big yawn out here. Also all the APRS activity around here (102 deg W, 32 deg N) is on 145.01. It would be nice to have everything nationwide on a frequency where I could build some trackers and know they would work wherever they went.

    Comments of Karl Weir, N2NJH

    In Western New York (Buffalo, Rochester) we have moved to 144.39 and been then for several years. This was done for several reasons, the formost being the Canadians have standardized on 144.39. As far as a "fund" to move - this is a foolish activity. Being an Amateur Radio operator is NOT a cheep hobby. If you can't fund a new set of crystals for a site/frequency change then what will you do when it gets hit by lighting? Anyway if TAPR wants to get wrapped up in that mess, so be it. :-) I am also Chairperson for the Ontario Western New York Packet Advisory Group and have sent a letter off to the ARRL also stating out position and encourage the ARRL to make the recommendation for the standarization of 144.39 as the North American APRS frequency. Thanks for taking the interest situation and keep up the great work! 73 Karl - N2NJH

    Comments of Jerry Maloney, N8JYD

    My only concern is interference to the 144.340 atv coordination frequency. As it is five Khz away, I dont see a problem. 73 DE Jerry

    Comments of Matthew Stennett, 7J6CAT

    As of January 1st, 1998, I have been TRYING to get some local people interested to run the APRS program, for about 3-4 months. So far, NO ONE I have spoke to about it, has had much interest, this statement INCLUDES those people at JARL Japan Amateur Radio League, AND Japanese CQ Magazine! I'll keep trying! MacRatt Matt; alias: MadMax, Tokyo Japan The ONLY APRS station in Japan!

    Comments of Michael Hull, KD4DLT

    I have thought Long and Hard about this and read the pro's and con's. But still I can not see moving a Network as well setup and supported As this one is with out some far better reasons than what I have read Sofar.!. Kd4dlt

    Comments of Ralph Fowler, N4NEQ

    I don't understand the rush, willy-nilly to switch! I've recently been seeing bulletins on the air from USER stations who only have to flip a dial to QSY. They are ignorant of the rest of the picture- the network they use every day!

    The 144.39 frequency has not even been verified as clear Nation Wide yet. There are other users on or near the frequency now.

    I know of very few APRS home users who would be financially affected by a move- most of them will flip the dial. The real burden will be felt by the network operators.

    There is a major issue that NO ONE has even mentioned yet! That issue is QRM from APRS Digipeaters to VHF repeaters on the same site. Currently, we are well away from repeater input frequencies. Sure, we are close to some output frequencies now, but most of those repeaters were there first and we are used to having to deal with a little interference.

    The users of the repeaters starting at 145.11 and going upwards will not tolerate anything they feel resembles intermod, desense, or interference from an APRS digipeater newly switched to a frequency as close as 120 KHz from their input! The first squawk and they will be at our door! A pass cavity (as if I could wish that all APRS digis had them) may not even help- a 144.39 notch may be required on the 2M repeater's input frequency. In our network, moving to 144.39 would essentially kill our chances of ever having a Downtown location, due to 145.41 and 145.43 repeaters being nearby. One of them is even at the *same site*!

    I'm not opposed to having a unified, dedicated, clear Nationwide APRS frequency! It's just that a lot more looking and experimentation is ahead of us. Any move off of 145.79 in the near future would not be in our best interest!

    Comments of Craig Lemke, AB0GD

    This is surely a heated debate. We (the local users) are trying to stir up APRS interest in Colorado. The prospect of a possible freq change for xtal controlled trackers makes it difficult to convince newcomers to join in the fun.

    Comments of Jimmy Burkhalter, KB5WIO

    I think moving would interfear with other hams more than Mir.

    Comments of Ken Bass, K4EVH

    Ready at any time. All radios are tunable.

    Comments of Walter Holmes, K5WH

    To move from a normal FM allocated frequency, and change the ENTIRE World over to a new frequency, just allow a SINGLE station like Mir the use of it, is absoloutely senseless. I am a big fan of Mir, and the entire Space/Amsat programs, but I feel that it would be far better to change Mir to a frequency, instead of moving APRS into an area that is sure to cause conflict with many more stations around the US, who enjoy chasing weak signals, and sideband work. Also, if we all change to another frequency, what guarantees will we have to ensure that we're not forced to change again, after we spend all the time, money and energy to do this.

    Comments of Keith Wentzel, KD4ITI

    With the MIR on 145.985 is there still a problem??

    Comments of Roger Attwell, WN7M

    I am strongly opposed to the QSY. It is being pushed and even being implemented without agreement of the silent majority that have set up much equipment on a nation wide frequency. This will splinter APRS to two freq's, and many people will refuse to move. Those that refuse to move are all it takes to make space communications difficult. We have lots of crystal controlled radio's, I doubt if there are many crystal controlled radios working stations in space, instead they are very expensive radios with many memories, multiple VFO's etc. Let them move! Space communications is great, and good for drawing kids into ham radio, but they don't need our frequency to do it, and have probably abandoned using it anyway! Please do not forward this to any lists. Thank you, Roger

    Comments of L Bradley, W1WXS

    I maintain club equipment and any needs are funded by the club

    Comments of Donald Maziarz, WY2V

    The proposed move of the nationwide APRS operating frequency is in the best interest of Amateur Radio. The move will demonstrate the ability of Amateur Radio to resolve frequency sharing conflicts without the involvment of outside organizations.

    Comments of Robert Morgan, WB5AOH

    I have intentionally held off with any plans for initial purchase of crystals for any APRS purposes, since the freq choice was always in doubt. When it is decided, I will probably equip 1-3 radios with APRS crystals, and install them either on nodes or my own station/mobile equipment.

    Another possible advantage of 144.39 could be on sites where one antenna needs to be shared with other packet equipment, either on the 144.91-145.09 subband, or the 145.73-145.79 subband, and it would be MUCH easier to tune a duplexer for th3 144.39 split with either of these two subbands. For instance, if we needed to run a combined node on APRS with another we are building in Austin on 145.73 for other (ARES) functions, 144.39 would be feasible, whereas 145.79 APRS wouldn't be possible at all.

    I would also like to see us standardized with Canada, and also to eliminate any satellite uses QRM.

    Comments of Bill Diaz, KC9XG

    I welcome the proposal to QSY to 144.39. This will help make APRS even more viable in North America. The results and comments from the questionaire have been very informative. Thanks to TAPR for providing all views on the subject.

    Comments of Larry Vanderwater, N0BKB

    The $20 for crystals is a small part of the cost of an APRS digi. Don't get involved with giving away any $'s, some one will complain that they did not get enough!!

    Comments of Frank Kostelac, N7ZEV

    What a mess!

    Comments of Chris Nicholson, N9LLO

    Ready to change as soon as possible

    Comments of Bob Walker, N4CU

    Current frequency already a problem. It seems that only Sat. users recognize it as a problem.

    Comments of Steven Singhose, KB7ZDD

    Plans for a digi are on hold until this matter gets resolved. Then we will crystal and tune.

    Comments of Stephen Schwarm, W3EVE

    There is a problem in the Boston Area that is not addressed by this effort. There are several people that use 144.40 as a simplex frequence for 2meter AM. Most of these radios are crystal controlled. The frequency has been coordinated and has been the cause of much conflict between the packet and AM people in the area. Would these people also be able to apply of help in getting crystal? Which frequency should they use?

    Comments of Tommy Ellison, KE4DGH

    Reading the mail on the APRS SIG, it appears there is a lot of confusion and unanswered questions. I agree that APRS needs a national frequency, but is 144.39 the right choice? Tommy KE4DGH

    Comments of Gary Standorf, KB2YOX

    I believe the change is necessary to support space station operation. I agree with those who say the public relations value and of having Amateur radio on the space station is inestimable. While it won't cost me anything more to change than a spin of the frequency dial, I am very willing to contribute to the fund to help those Amateurs who must expend considerable money to make the change. I believe this change is in the best long-term interest of Amateur Radio. 73, Gary Standorf, KB2YOX Tinton Falls, NJ

    Comments of robert henglein, kc5jzg

    My digi is (I hope) a temporary gap filler. Primary use is wx station.

    Comments of Michael Heskett, WB5QLD

    Must be coordinated nation-wide.

    Comments of Joe Vilardo, K3JV

    I Live in South Eastern PA. The 145.39 frequency you have selected to QSY to has an active voice repeater on it. Has this group been contacted and if so do they intend to move their repeater to another Freq.

    Comments of George Dean, kc5kge

    I really hate the bias toward WIDE digi owners on this subject. I operate 5 different APRS stations, but none are WIDEs (my choice). Two of them were WIDEs, but now that they are not, my opinion is almost worthless in the eyes of the SIG. I personally would not waste my money on crystal controlled radios. People try to save money by purchasing xtal radios, and then complain later when they can't change the frequency. Who's fault is that?!? As for tuning cans... This would be a good oportunity for hams to learn to tune the cans themselves. I never had the option of having them "professionally" tuned. Borrow a spectrum analyzer & RF generater and get busy! We are HAMS! Since when do we go around asking for hand-outs?!?

    Comments of Bruce Pigott, KC1US

    In the Boston area 144.40 is used by AMers. They have been chased off two other frequencies by Packet Clusters. I have a tracker that is used in the Boston Marathon and other events, plus a home station. I will be staying on 145.79. If others in New England change frequency, my stations will shut down.

    Comments of Michael Markmann, VE4MJM

    Although I really didn't like the fact that the Ontario APRS users forced the RAC suggested bandplan for APRS to 144.39 while the rest of North America was using 145.79, I can see now that it makes a little more sense to use 39 instead of 79. The local packet BBS here has been on 144.31 for a few years now with no complaints that I am aware of.

    Comments of Glen Doolittle, N9WKS

    The freq. change is not a big deal, and I don't understand all the %$*&(* about it!

    Comments of george kammerzell jr., n0zed

    i do have service monitor and tools needed for freq change and can help in the north front range of colorado

    Comments of William LeComte, KB1DX

    VHF round table AM operation is currently on 144.4 MHz. We would be forced to replace transmit XTALs. An exact count of how many operators in the NE area that would need new XTALs has not yet been determined. A rough estimate in PA, NY, NJ, MA, RI, CT, NH, VT, and ME of 50 stations is possible. At $20 per XTAL, it would cost $1000. However, it may cost much less than that with quantity discounts and a lower count of stations.

    Comments of clyde mathe, wb4bdp


    Comments of William LeComte, KB1DX

    VHF round table AM operation is currently on 144.4 MHz. We would be forced to replace transmit XTALs. An exact count of how many operators in the NE area that would need new XTALs has not yet been determined. A rough estimate in PA, NY, NJ, MA, RI, CT, NH, VT, and ME of 50 stations is possible. At $20 per XTAL, it would cost $1000. However, it may cost much less than that with quantity discounts and a lower count of stations.

    Comments of Chris McKendry, KH2PM

    I use APRS occasionally here on Guam. KH2EI uses it every day of the week. I will send him this link/URL

    Comments of - -, wa4hei

    You want to know too much. I hope what I provided is of value. Pete/wa4hei

    Comments of John (Bill) Hays, w0omv

    Our club sponsors a wide digi and will pay fo any costs involved if a QSY is done.

    Comments of Richard Roberts, n0rul

    I look forward to a decision to move to 144.39 or to stay on 145.79. UHF frequencies would also be fine. It makes no difference to me. I just hope a decision is made soon.

    Comments of Dave Schwartz, VA3DGS

    As one of the sometimes referred-to Canadians who already have a nationally coordinated APRS frequency on 144.39, I will not be much affected by your decision, other than having to shut off my xtal controlled tracker if I venture farther into the US than Western NY - which I have to do now anyway. I would prefer not to get involved in the great debate other than to state that my strong preference would be to see a single continent-wide coordinated frequency that makes allowance for the great opportunity of hams-in-space. Of course, this is easy to say when there's no cost or inconvenience on my part. I realize that there will be great disruption to your network but am confident that the growing pains will be worth it in the long run, for APRS, ISS and the hobby as a whole. The positions of entrenched opposition visible on the SIG can only be counterproductive, devisive and reflect badly on the members of the Amateur Radio Service (note: not Hobby), whichever way the argument goes. Play nice now!

    Comments of Steve D'Amelio, n1kml

    I own two wx stations and a tracker All are synthesized.

    Comments of Art Welch, k7tx

    I've been reading all the stuff re the pros and cons of the move and it appears to me that an honest effort has been made to get a consensus and that you should have it by now. In my view, Amateur Radio is losing out and needs help. If this action will further the interest of Amateur Radio and encourage it's growth, let's do it.

    Comments of Jack Plum, WX3P

    Some things are self-evident. Move!

    Comments of Richard Witte, K6KMA

    In the past year, Sarex and Mir have changed FOO (freq of Oper) many times around and out of the two meter band. What assurances do we have they won't move beside us again, expecting us to just 'move away'. I would rather see (if we must move) leaving the two meter band altogether; going to six meter. Less crowd, definately underutilized (here in the west, at least), and I believe that if we go there, the manufactures will follow (an MFJ 8621 in six meters).

    Comments of Paul Drothler, WO4U

    I am really tired of seeing all the childish comments on the SIG about the possible QSY. It is apparent that some people have little more to do than sit at the keyboard and debate. We have so many positive things that we can do with APRS - I just wish we could focus our efforts on the SIG to that end. AND get off the "soapboxes".

    Comments of Wilbur Goll, W0DEL

    The 5 kHz deviation from 145.79 does not fall in the space band. Narrow down space receiver bandwidth.

    Comments of Shawn Djernes, N0PEU

    I am just getting started in APRS and have not even goten a GPS yet because of the lack of access for the blind. I will be working on producing software for the Blazie Engineering notetakers to use with GPS locaters and most likely Aprs. If there are any other blind amateurs using APRS I would be interested in talking to them.

    Comments of Martin Gary, W2MG

    I hope this gets resolved soon so I can get another digi on the air. I didn't mind buying one set of xtals, knowing they might be trashed, but two sets are too much!

    Comments of Jim Duncan, KU0G

    I've said it all on the APRS SIG. This is the WRONG move at the WRONG time.

    Comments of George Fisk, K6TAM

    wr6abd node has been moved to 144.39. The Loma Pioneer Repeater club stood the cost of the move. The node has been operating on the new freq. for about 2 months.

    Comments of James French, KD4DLA

    I'm just getting started back running APRS again and things have changed a lot,but stayed the same since the last time. A lot new features and all. But I did look over the comments before I answered this questionaire. For one, I don't think that ANYONE should reimburse the owners of crystalled radios. Like one commentee said: this is only a hobby!! If you wanted to put it up in the first place, you should go about paying the expenses,otherwise take it down and put it to ggod use as a repeater. Second, Stop the bitching at AMSAT!!! AMSAT-NA doesn't have control over where MIR is placed. From what I understand, that was approved without AMSAT-NA's input. Truthfully, I would like to see MIR placed back on 145.985 till they abandon the station for the International Space Station. Then,I would like to see them put those frequencies use on the ISS WITHIN the INTERNATIONALLY agreed upon Satellite bands period. Third, what low-power stations are on 144.000? I've never heard them, but I do have to admit that I don't listen down there that much. I skip that frequency to go into the SSB portion of the band. Around here in Detroit, the closest thing I've heard from people that would cause interference is to the ATVer's over on 144.340.

    Comments of - -, KD6HNG

    What is the BIG deal, let's get on with it...

    Comments of David Bolduc, KB9FBG

    Did anyone notice the typo in the Feb. QST that lists the new APRS freq. as 145.390? Just wondering

    Comments of Roger Rehr, W3SZ

    I think the QSY is the right thing to do. Period.

    Comments of Martin Schultz, N9PPJ

    Have four Motorola Mitreks crystal up on 145.790, one used for a digi, one for a 30 meter -> 2 Meter gate, one for personal tracker in car, one as a spare. Having two of them taken care of by the QSY fund would be helpfull, and great as I'm nota guy with too much money to keep spending on crystals, hi.

    Comments of jeff ruhnke, n9web

    I feel like we are being pushed out beacue a Larger gfroup wants what we have

    Comments of Jim Baremore, K5QQ

    Response typed to the comments section of the APRS questionaire I am really opposed to this move, primarily because it appears so one sided and underhanded in it's implementation process. There is no information being presented as to why the space operations cannot find another frequency within their 200 KHz band. I have asked why the AMSAT alternate channels, as presented in their DCC slides, cannot be used and have not received technically correct answers. They chose to operate at the edge of a band and now want other users to move to provide them a guard channel. Yet, with all of the obstacles to the move discussed, there is no discussion from AMSAT as to the problems they have with their alternate frequency options as well as with any other frequency in their 200KHz set aside for space operation.. Most irritating and suggestive of a very biased process, it does not appear any of the counter arguments were ever heard by the ARRL in their acceptance of the AMSAT proposal. Finally, it appears there is a lot of 'motherhood' being used in these arguments, specifically that if you are against AMSAT talking to School children, etc, you must not be interested in advancing amateur radio (Bad Boy, Bad Boy!!). I think the Search and Rescue exercises and mission operations we have performed here in New Mexico using APRS have really convinced the State Department of Public Safety (State Police) of the value of Amateur radio and especially APRS. The State is currently budgeting money to help other SAR teams becomed equipped with this technology. I believe both of these technologies are important but I believe APRS has a much stronger tie to the Public Service role needed to help ensure the future of Amateur Radio.

    Comments of Linda Mullen, AD4BL

    When I first answered this questionare, I was not opposed to the move but after studying the matter and reading all the information presented, it appears that there is a better way to do this than disrupt a whole nation of stations, digi's, and systems for several satalites. I do enjoy working the satilites but the solution presented for us to move a whole network is ridiculous, knee-jerk idea. It would not be a problem for us to change our digi, but we are still building our system and I can assure you that the Northern Florida Section will stay on 145.79. It is a growing part of our emergency system here and it is vital that we not be fractured by this situation. Please don't do it.

    Comments of Edward Cox, K3SWJ

    Many areas will have difficulty in using the proposed 144 frequency due to prior usage of adjacent frequencies. Since no radios or operation will take place on ISS for some time it does not seem to require movement at any time soon. Further, it does not seem that the new kid on the block (ISS) has established much of a case for the move on the part of an active group (APRS) which contributes as much and on a more regular base than the space program. This is not to say I do not believe in Amateur Radio in Space. I have assisted or lead operation for at least four school SAREX sessions. I have been a user of several different satellite transponders and built my own TVRO system. So I just feel that like the weak signal work, and the space function all should compete for frequencies just as all other ham functions do. We have thousand of "channels" and this is not the time, or place to issue channels by national decree.

    Comments of Earl Needham, KD5XB

    I'm very concerned that the QSY may further fragment our group. The mail on the APRSSIG really shows a problem in this area, and the early announcement of the QSY as a "done deal" doesn't help. The same can be said for the ARRL Board's action just a day or two ago. I'm really not FOR or AGAINST the QSY, but I sure feel like we're being pushed into something without an adaquate opportunity to decide for ourselves.

    Comments of Doug McKinney, KC3RL

    In Monterey County, CA, we have shifted. Most members here don't use xtal controlled untis, but if we did, the cost is still small. The cosideration of band plan usage always needs to be reviewed. I remember when Packet first started, in the 80's, and the subsequent massive growth in activity. When the technology catches on, like Packet did and now APRS, then carefull band expansioning needs to be considered. We didn't find the change a problem.

    Comments of ROBERT MARLEY, N3OBQ


    Comments of Nick Kotch, KF4BYA

    I really have no preference as to move or not.

    Comments of Sydney Chiswell, W2ICZ

    Due to our proximity to Canada, we have since the begining used 144.390 with our Canuck friends,. living together along an unarmed border, one does not fight over Freq's..Feel sorry to see such feelings being expressed over changing freq...I thought this was a hobby, but maybe its because I have been haming for over 60 yrs..

    Comments of Scott Arnold, KC5RIE

    I am the owner of a commercial communications shop and will tune all duplexers etc... myself. all my equipment is computer programed and/or reprogramable. Just need to take time to change it. would be willing to retune duplexers etc.. for other digi owners in close proximity to my location on a time available basis.

    Comments of michael conrod, kb7zzs

    I think that this is the best option. Being a supporter of both space and aprs communications, I think this is a wise decision. I also would like to see aprs information being used via space and visa-versa. 73 Mike KB7ZZS

    Comments of Dale Seaburg, KG5LT

    We are using the 145.010 freq in Brownwood. I plan on replacing the local BWD TheNet 2.08B node with a PC, Linux, netrom and aprsdigi to give us the best of both worlds. We may QSY later on, but not in the foreseeable future. We are to spread out here to worry about QRMing the ax25 network.

    Comments of Joseph Thiel, N5SMN

    MIR is on it's way out... off the air when unit is destroyed by orbital decay.

    Comments of Robert Manak, AA9JW

    We need to do what is best for ham radio in general, and that will help our small area and all of ham radio in the long haul. A single coast to coast freq would be nice. Space activities need to be a very visible presence in ham radio.

    Comments of Ron Kramer, VE3MX

    This Area of Ontario and Western New York , where the first area's to move to the 144.390 frequency, and we where instrumental in the Canadian Bandplan to adopt this frequency for APRS work.

    Comments of Larry Vandewater, N0BKB

    From December 15 to Dec. 30, 1997 I listen to the Freq of 144.39. As I heard nothing there....On Jan 3, 1998 I put on a Aprs station on 144.39 that is running parrell with 145.79. All seem to be working fine. I think that all Aprs users in Central and South West Iowa would change when the time comes. Larry Vandewater, N0BKB

    Comments of John Lewis, KF4PQQ

    My club, Mobile ARC, W4IAX, has already switched it's APRS Digipeater. I therefore will run on 144.39 when I start using APRS. I am a new ham, but I see from the discussion about this issue that the possessive mentality of two year olds seems to stay with us much later in life. I certainly see the costs and inconvienence for rockbound / digi owners, but the level of argument is worse than on CNN's Counterpoint. Clearly, very long range planning is needed when we embark on ventures such as a national backbone of same freq digi's. I think the system is too far along its development path to QSY, but I must go where the digi's go, so I will. As for me and my radios, I shall be loath to ever purchase a rockbound rig.

    Comments of Thomas Bates, AA1NZ

    I would prefer to assist the space effort rather than QRM them with emissions from my hobby. I have lost much interest in APRS, and am thoroughly disgusted and embarassed with the assinine display on the APRS SIG as of late.

    Comments of William Bliss, WB6LPG

    Am willing to QSY ..

    Comments of lee mcdaniel, wb4qoj

    I think that the aprs freq. change is probably going to happen, i think that it is a shame that all the crap that we have been hereing about is splitting our hobby. i might move i might not i havent decided yet. might just network on 145.79 and stay on that freq. i would not feel this way maybe but the ARRL is now in the mix. if the aprs community decided to move OK if TAPR says we need to move OK too. but if the ARRL says move, then ill build a network state wide, AND I CAN DO IT TOO. arrl has no interest in packet never has never will.

    Comments of Bruno Haineault, VE2EQ/W6

    Big debate concerning this relatively unimportant matter... you will probably find out that only a small percentage of hams will *really* require financial assistance. Goes with the saying "hams are cheap" (ask OEM's). Concerning the frequency switch itself, 144.39 is rarely used and anyhow, no matter what you do, someone will be mad. Lets get it over with... and watch the SuperBowl !

    Comments of John Cavanagh, KB4XF

    One would hope that this will be the last QSY. While we are at it what about an secondary channel for experimentation and public serice events?

    Comments of Wayne Truax, KE6UWK

    I have yet to hear any stations on 144.390. I do have some minor RFI from somewhere local (former Army Base-all kinds of industrial equipment operating with poor filtering-still searching out the offending equipment).

    Comments of Leonard Revelle, N9IJ

    Though I operate as a WIDE, there are plenty of wides in the area. I do use state of the art radios and don't need funding. When it gets to the point that funding becomes an issue, I do something else. The change to 144.39 causes no conflict in this county if my weeks of monitoring are any indication. I have become real impatient with the issue itself and am opposed to the move as a matter of principal but will do so if that decision is actually made and implementation begins. as a matter of fact I can do both freqs if necessary.

    Comments of Robert Radmore, N2PWP

    Already on 144.390 as this is the frequency for Canada and adjacent New York State.

    Comments of William Post, N6HAV

    Discussion is much to do about nothing. If the digi's move, the users must move or hang it up Have been a packet user since the Vancouver and TNC1 days, moved frequency many times over the years. Former BBS operator, 5 years, and former owner wide area digi. 1984 to 1990

    Comments of Theodore Katz, N3OWM

    This is the second pass on filling out this form I am responding to a E-mail

    Comments of Bruno Haineault, VE2EQ/W6

    Big debate concerning this relatively unimportant matter... you will probably find out that only a small percentage of hams will *really* require financial assistance. Goes with the saying "hams are cheap" (ask OEM's). Concerning the frequency switch itself, 144.39 is rarely used and anyhow, no matter what you do, someone will be mad. Lets get it over with... and watch the SuperBowl !

    Comments of Mike Boyce, K0COY

    Unfortunately, I sincerely believe that there will be amateurs who are affected by the proposed move that are operating on that freq. Being a ham for more that 30 years, I've noticed that many hams land on a freq and began transmitting without listening first. I feel this move is kind of like that. Parts of the country won't be affected as much, while others will feel a large impact. There is enough problems with opeators and the way they operate. I'm afraid that this move will cause hard feelings wherever we land. The 2 meter spectrum is only so big, and there are many new operators getting on every day. Finding an unused area is next to impossible. We should all step lightly, and not try to force this down anyone's throat.

    Comments of Mike Rosenbohm, N0GGU

    I am a member of the Kansas City APRS working group but I am more closly affiliated with Central, Western and Southwestern Iowa as far as the wide digi's are concerned. So If Iowa changes I will also. It makes sense to have one freq. but here in Northwest Missouri the change will not be a problem to other users. All radio's here have vfo's so change is not a problem. One other note, I feel this is a hobby so even if I had crystal radio's I personally would not take advantage of the QSY fund. I certainly understand those that have gone to a degree of expense with crystals etc. would use the fund but where do you draw the line once a precident is set? You guys have a tough job on your hands a I wish you luck. Mike N0GGU

    Comments of Paul Womble, AJ4Y

    Lets get on with it. How much longer is the fighting going to go on? U Until everyone gets their way? That will never happen. You can't please everyone...

    Comments of Lee Kissell, KB9OBE

    Many can argue about this for years. I am willing to move but perhaps the issue of placing us too close to repeater inputs may become a new issue. If this causes trouble, we will be fighting an even larger problem. I also do not care for the "fund" as some will surely abuse the system so let's do it on our own. I am sure that folks who put this equipment up in the first place can afford to change the freq in their equipment. I have one needing xtals and those will cost about $20.00 for the pair. My mobile unit is programmable. Let's all just think carefully before we all (most of us) take the leap. Thanks for taking the comments.

    Comments of James Krist, KG8GE

    Let's be good neighbors and get on with the move and off the subject! I'm about to unsubscribe from the SIG and disappear due to the "dead horse" syndrome!

    Comments of Bob Evans, w2/g3zfj

    I also run the local GATE, weather station and have a tracker system. The digi (kb2scs-15) is located at John's kb2scs, I own the tx (HTX212) and John owns the tnc.

    Comments of Richard Wright, ai4l

    well it appears to me the move is already on its way acording to the articles on the sig. its a shame that all the bickering is happening instead of getting all the major players together,and trying to get with all parties involved to get this worked and thought out before jumping into a deep well. it seems to me if we could teach all amateur's to fine tune there equip. and reduce the bandwidth and move to 145.78 that all involved could pad there equip. enough to make there move minimal, on the other hand if you could move the sat. to 145.81 and do the same fine tuning..well its all a big mess that needs to be thought out by all major players before we even consider a move that well split the aprs network.....

    Comments of Paul Sadowski, AH6LS

    Instead of contributing - my $$$ will go into changing my own radio's crystals and getting the radios retuned....

    Comments of Robert Adams, W8BKO

    I recently moved from my former home to a retirement center. So far, I have been unable to get my equipment installed to return to some activity on APRS. I am a minor user at best. My opinion is not worth very much. 73....Bob

    Comments of Jim Warakois, W1KRU

    There is weak signal communication on frequencies adjacent to 144.39 No need to QRM them with all the "braaping from packet". I am having intermod studies done at my digi site (17 other transmitters at that location) The jury is out on using 144.39 from that site alth- ough the 145.790 comes up "clean". This does not include some 20 or more transmitters within 1 mile which were not figured into the frequency "mix" In order to be compliant with current APRS useage we moved from 145.770 which caused several packet groups to shift tcp-ip and other stuff to different frequencies. Now, if we QSY again our image in that community becomes questionable. I don't see any controls being created for distribution of funds. And although we are honest, trustworth, loyal etc. There is strong potential for funds "sliding through fingers." (why does my computer only generate open quotes and not close quotes?) If a QSY should come about I would advocate creating cross frequency digis in areas bordering the 144.39 and 145.79 areas.

    Comments of Joseph Hussey, W8RIK

    The frequency change must be coordinated - nationwide - NO EXCEPTIONS. If we do not have a national APRS frequency - it is pointless and will result in the demise of APRS. That would be a shame.

    Comments of Chris Edwards, AE4XO

    For me the change is as simple as changing freqs. The question is not whether or not we should change, but how much interference will we cause? I suppose this is a great debate, and this shows more about how we need to co-operate in the hobby. Best of Luck and 73

    Comments of George Hadley, N7SNI

    Plan to go along with planned June switch proposed in NW. Strongly support clearing frequency for Space Station.

    Comments of Brian Boccardi, N2MPM

    I was very lucky to have purchase d at a Ham Club Auction aClegg FM 28 for $25 so i just have to twist a few knobs to QSY.

    Comments of Don Pfister, KA0JLF

    I am willing to help, and appreciate any help. I don't really care if we move or not. It has been my experience with HAM radio, as most things, if it changes we change with it or quit. I don't plan to quit APRS so I will change. I am currently (and have been for several months, since the requests to test the waters) on 144.39. I will continue to make a presence there.

    Comments of David McCarthy, KC7AYX

    We have discussed this with the AZ Digital Coord., Dan Meredith, N7MRP. He says we could move, but there may be some conflicts in AZ. He is also waiting to see what So. Cal. does. We will not move unless they do. Also, I read a recent memo about complaints from weak freq operators about interference in those sub-bands. Isn't 144.39 in the 2m sub-band?

    Comments of Ed Fisher, N3HOO

    This QSY should only occur AFTER AMSAT has approval WORLDWIDE of their proposed frequencies. Otherwise, we may be asked to move again (if they (AMSAT) decide they would like to use 144.39 if their current proposal does not gain approval worldwide). I like the idea of one frequency, continent wide, for APRS and have no opinion as to what it should be. This appears to make sense for all concerned if AMSAT gets approval WORLDWIDE for their proposed frequencies. We are giving up approximately 5.5 years occupancy of a freq (at least on the East Coast) for one on which we will be the new kids on the block. The only comfort I get from the switch is that the power brokers all seem to be on the same sheet of music this time and, hopefully, will maintain that posture while working out all the problems. Now why don't all of you get to work on the other bands for APRS freqs while this issue is hot?!?! I do not support a QSY fund but will accept equipment for more WIDE digis if someone wants to donate it to me. I also would like to have my four TNCs upgraded and get a couple of FT1000s if someone has some spares to support my hobby. Can we please get a fund started for that! That will be much easier than asking my XYL to agree to more money for my hobby. I could use a new boat for the APRS station down on the Chesapeake. Who thought up a QSY fund for amateur radio? If he/she was involved in the rest of the proposal, I'm beginning to get worried about it.

    Comments of john dalin, ka0myg

    Can't remember if I have already responded. Don't think so.

    Comments of Darrell Hale, N3KTP

    I fully support a move to a nationwide APRS frequency for purposes of a consolidated access frequency. Multiple, disconnected networks are a distinct disadvantage for people like myself who will not put up with the current hunt and peck APRS activity search that I have now when I am traveling, in turn keeping me from investing more into APRS that I would otherwise. If can understand why some local networks would like to stay in place. I I would not like to see such a large benefit halted because a few want to protect their status quo. Like all changes of this magnitude, the network operators will not be able to change overnight, or may not want to change at all. In those cases, someone can hekp them move, or may simply setup equipment for the new frequency, or that part of the country may just elect to "suffer" by being different. As of yet I don't see where anyone with a well established network will be _required_ to move from their current allocations. And if that area requires a second network due to heavy local use (ie: weather and special event activity) a second network at 145.79 would not be a bad thing. But to give up an opportunity to consolidate due to a few who want to stay put because it's just easier seems to be a shame on the amateur service. For every question like "how many people actually travel around alot now", I could ask "how many of those people would become more involved with a standard frequency?" I am a member of the Wilderness Search and Rescue community. Our organization works over a multi-state area, I would love being able to show up at a search and KNOW that any local APRS activity will be found at one frequency, and that all local resources (ie: digipeaters) will be available immediately. Most SAR personnel are unwilling to "waste time" in these situations, so even the _potential_ of having to reset the APRS gear to whatever local frequency is available is a major roadblock to implementing APRS in the first place! I don't fully understand the impact of the space based issues since I don't do those activities. However, it appears that many of their problems are just reflections of APRS problems, namely trying to maximize their fun and enjoyment while minimizing the problems from those activities. The problems caused to all users (APRS, space, repeaters, etc.) will be a pain at first to address, but it will also eliminate many of the current problems we already have now. And the folks still involved with APRS in 5-10 years will be better off then when the (hopefully) larger numbers of operators and equipment will provide and even stronger argument to maintain and hold onto a national frequency that we don't have now.

    Comments of Samuel Nabkey, k8sn

    If we change, I want EVERYBODY to change.. This thing of some folks on 2 or 3 freq's make the word "National" kinda NOT.

    Comments of Paul Stump, N0LRF

    In light of the recent endorsement by the ARRL BoD and the excellent background information by Dr. Clark, I am changing my vote from Maybe to Definitely

    Comments of Ken Talbott, ke4rg

    I think it rediculous that we are being forced to move to accomodate an imagined problem.

    Comments of Mike Knapp, KB8UKP

    i am willing to QSY. however it is my opinion that we should not. APRS has had a history at 145.79 mHz and though noone owns a frequency, it is a judgement call. it would be easier for the one station aboard mir or the upcoming international space station to switch frequency than the countless number of digi owners who will be affected economically by the QSY. it is my hope that the consensus feel this way. 73

    Comments of Ollie Cooper, N0KVC

    At first I was against but now feel it would be better to be on same frequency as Canada

    Comments of Todd Putman, N3TFM

    I feel that a wide spread freq change would damage the APRS network due to the numerous digis/stations that are using crystal controlled radios. There will be some that can not afford to move over. Of course, I will be forced to move over if all of the traffic on the current frequency moves over. It also isn't right to be pushed off the frequency that's been in use for at least 4 years. Thanks, Todd Putman N3TFM

    Comments of M. Pat Crawford, K5AHE

    K5AHE-5 has already moved to 144.39. No problems or conflicts at this time.

    Comments of Warren Boudrie, AA2LQ

    Actual owner of KB2WYA is the Rochester Amateur Packet Society and the SySop is KA2GPJ. However, I take care of all programming (remotely) for this Wide Area Digipeater. It is a WIDEn digi. Out packet club fully supports going nationally to 144.39 and has sent a letter to the ARRL stating so.

    Comments of David Sailer, KB8PQZ

    I think that presures from other groups should not influence the move to 144.39, it should be in the best intrest of all involved. All the information that I have read I think that all should get involved in the decision should be a majority ruling. Thank you Dave Sailer KB8PQZ ps I have been running a station in Belding MI for over a year. I would like to see more participation in A.P.R.S.....

    Comments of Jack Fetter, kb8dp

    we do have several voice repeaters on 144.39 It would be better in Central Ohio to stay on 145.79

    Comments of William Covey, W1GTT

    If this frequency change will strengthen APRS country wide, then I'm for it. If it's only going to be a few stations moving, then no way. All stations on APRS regardless of their present frequency should make every effort to QSY for the benefit of the entire country. NO splinter frequencies.

    Comments of Mark Endicott, WB0NOO

    Greg: I really don't understand the need for question #6 above. It would seem to me that a "HAM" that is capable of building a digi or other APRS equipment should be in a position to re-tune his own equipment with out "professional" assistance. If this is not the case perhaps they should find another hobby. I am also personally not in favor of asking for or accepting financial assistance for hobby related activities. If each individual is not in a position to fund their own modifications then let the local users pitch in a few bucks. The APRS network is a cool toy, but it is not necessary for National Defense. I am concerned that the Network will suffer if we all are not on the same frequency. The few of us that run crystal mobile trackers may find it difficult to switch frequency on the go. I also believe that it is time for the wide bandwidth of AM to go away. Spectrum is just to valuable to used by just a few folks. Commercial narrow-banding is upon us now, if Hams are to pioneer the technologies then we should get with the state of the art and narrow band with the rest of the commercial services. Soapbox off, I will go with the flow...Mark

    Comments of Frank Mondt, n0sms

    At the moment there is NO VHF APRS activity within 70 miles of my QTH. I would consider putting up a GATE or a Wide once this QSY issue is put to rest.

    Comments of Keith Sproul, WU2Z

    Some of this questioner is confusing.... But I am VERY glad to see TAPR doing it

    Comments of Bruce Micales, WA2DEU

    At present, the station that I am involved with (home and American Red Cross) use synthesize frequency rigs. Therefore, for me the move (or not) would not cause great problems. However, I do recongize that there are many stations that are "rock bound" and/or may use other equipment that might need re- tuning should the move occur. It is my hope that a single frequency would be set aside for APRS on a National (International would be too much to hope for) basis. Working with the American Red Cross, I do see great potential for the use of APRS, but a split in frequency usage, could cause some problems during emergency usage.

    Comments of Ray Vaughan, KD4BBM

    Already done a couple of my stations. Only weather station remains.

    Comments of Randolph Hammock, KC6HUR

    If APRS is able to retain its reliability while reducing interference to others, plus being able to have a unified frequency for APRS everywhere, the move would be a big plus with everyone eventually winning (not whinning).

    Comments of Michael Havener, KE6FJT

    I am also very active on satelites, and find the intermod in my area makes the use of Mir in particular, very difficult at best. Most of the time Mir is not useable. On the flip side, I see a great advantage to having 1 North American APRS frequency. I have been monitoring 144.39, and found that some digi's have at least been expierimenting on this freq.

    Comments of John Holtz, KE6UIZ

    It seems that even if we move to .390, that too will create problems for someone, sometime. I truly believe in the space projects but don't really think we, or others, should be forced to move> There are enough frequencies out there that the Government(s) can/should use without causing the turmoil that the APRS'ers going through. If this change is forced upon us, it'll be just the beginning, I feel, for similar changes down the line....

    Comments of James Davidson, VE3TPZ

    already on 144.390

    Comments of Melvin Vye, W8MV

    I vote for move ASAP.

    Comments of Richard Howard, VE3DOH

    Being on 144.390 already ,really is an easy choice ,I would qsy to another freq, I like APRS.

    Comments of Mike Musick, N0QBF

    QSY fund should be reserved for bona fide hardship cases only. Frequency-agile technology has been a fact of life in the hobby for over 15 years. Those with heavy investments in crystal-controlled transceivers did so (primarily) to reap the benefits of low initial cost versus synthesized equipment. In other words, it is not exactly fair to compensate them for their lack of flexibility when it was they who "saved a buck" in the first place. QSY is a fact of life in the Amateur Radio Service - there is no "exclusive use" of frequencies.

    Comments of Greg Soderling, VE7SOD

    I think the no-code debate has moved to APRS freq changes. I also think the hobby moves forward through changes and spending money. Keep up the good work and don't let the #$#%% get you down.

    Comments of Ken Irish, W8JVP

    I am not currently active with an APRS setup. Consequently I don't consider myself to be a player in this discussion. I will accept the opinion of the majority. I do believe that Dr. Tom Clark's (W3IWI)discussion should be read by all before voting. I think Tom has put the issue in prospective.

    Comments of Gregg Babish, VE5GW

    A switch to 144.39 would benefit both Canada and the American users of APRS. Ideally, North America would adopt 144.39 as an APRS frequency. By the way, 144.39 is sanctioned by the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) as an official APRS frequency in Canada.

    Comments of Daniel Velez, W4DJV (ex N4WZR)

    This move debate has the potential to severely disrupt the growing APRS national and international network. I know I'm preaching to the choir, we all know what it's doing to us, but I'm not convinced we've really got all the information necessary to make a final decision. Questions that come to mind: (1) Do we have all the facts related to the need to move? (2) Is 144.39 the best answer? (3) Can we make it a unilateral move or will we splinter the networks? (4) Can we stick to the facts without get emotional (Duncan - who the hell IS this guy?!)? (5) Can we make a decision quickly and get it over with after we answer the above? APRS is keeping Amateur Packet Radio alive, in my opinion. We need to minimize the impact this discussion and result has on the service if we want packet radio to survive - my gut feel: Move, get it over with, don't even think about bringing it up again. 73 de Dan

    Comments of Fred Edwards, KF4MJJ

    I have been following the debate on the SIG and am confused, from what I have been able to understand, APRS is using 145.790 as a test, and that no freq had been officialy decided. If this is true, I do not see the problem. As a Licensed Amateur Radio Operatior, I will follow what ever the rules are.

    Comments of RATCHFORD, JEFFREY S, kc5jgv

    This questionaire serves no pupose since the answers are not yes/no/undecided. All this will do is provide another arugument for each side since the data is not difinative. Both sides will use and manipulate the date to thier advantage. Also, it is not any ones business what my name, address, phone number, shoe size, number of cats, where my digis are, HAAT, brnd names of radios, location or if I'm a member of TAPR. All your survey needs is a callsign, yes/no/undecided answer and estimated cost if QSYing.

    Comments of Ronald Armstrong, VE2JOR

    Here in the province of Quebec when I start APRS 4 years ago my gateway was on 145.77 and about 4 month ago I QSY to 144.39 to be at the same frq as the rest of Canada.Now in the future there will be three more digi in the vicinity of the greater Montreal. Hopefully you guys south of the border will make a wise decision to move to 144.39. Ronald VE2JOR 73'S

    Comments of Doug Bade, kb8gvq

    I am a service tech, and own a two-way shop in cleveland. I do not need assistance at this time, as I can handle the switch in Cleveland . I can prob encourage the move locally, however there will be some resistance from the user community.Publication of the why-for and national encouragement (ARRL) etc would be helpful. We are band plan oriented here, and compliance is usually attainable with a little encouragement.. I have the ability to do tuning work on radio's and duplexer/combiner equip, and would help in this area. I stopped working for free, because of abuse, but my ham rates are directly corellated to the attitude and personality of the service requester.......

    Comments of Mark Conner, N9XTN

    Do we know for sure that 144.39 is the best choice? This is in the segment generally used by non-FM operators. Another frequency in the 145.xx range may require less retuning for some APRS rigs. Synthesized APRS radios here, so I'll just punch in the new number when the local network moves.

    Comments of Harold Smedberg, WA8YLZ

    My home station uses a programmable ht.so changign it is no problem. However I may switch to a ge master2 crystal radio for aprs.I am waiting to put it on the air till you people decide on qsy. I belong to a club that wants to put three digis on the air using ge master2 radios, needing crystals.Several members also want to use the g.e.master2 for there home station to free up there voice radios.WE are afraid to order crystals till the frequency issue is settled.There are no digis this far north in michigan.We want to put one with weather in Mason county and Manistee co. to the north to extend aprs to the north. 73 wa8ylz Harold Smedberg

    Comments of Jim Donohue, KO6MH

    Let's go for it. However let's demand one concession before we do. Let's insist that ARRL and AMSAT bring all of their persuasive powers to assure that the new frequency gets coordinated throughout the country. If we do this reasonably well APRS could be very well served. Jim

    Comments of tony dacres, aa8ei

    think nationwide clear channel necessary, exact one immaterial, will support concept.

    Comments of Larry Keeran, K9ORP

    At this time, I can not tell if the commercial transmitters at our digipeater site will cause us to notch filter our 144.39 receiver or if our transmitter will cause IM into the commercial repeaters.

    Comments of Robert Chimel, WA3LWR

    I believe that the idea of everyone getting on one channel would be the best for APRS. While I am sure that everyone is not happy about the proposed change, the reality is that in any change, some people are not going to be completely satisfied. I am not, but I will do what is best for APRS.

    Comments of Chris Bell, KD6ZWR

    Let's get together and SOLVE the problems instead of just whining about them!!!

    Comments of John Tripp, Jr., N2SNL

    I do not personally own the digi mentioned above but am answering for the Rochester Amateur Packet Society which does own it. We are already using 144.39 frequency because of our closeness to Buffalo and Canada. We find more activity on this frequency than on 145.79 so we are 100% in favor of the move.

    Comments of Thomas Griffin, N7ZKL

    This QSY mess is really taking the fun out of APRS. Some people treat amateur radio like a life or death issue. Let's all say "it is only a hobby" together. Fortunately I've avoided commenting on this issue to the APRSSIG. Thanks much for creating the APRSNEWS mailing list.

    Comments of Al Zelna, N3KAE

    I am shocked this topic has actually gone this far. At first, I felt this was all overblown by those who are not involved with APRS. However, it now seems apparent that the use of politics as a lever is the best way to get a ball rolling. Am I willing to QSY? Reluctantly... which is not in the questionairre. I honestly hope the supposed benefits of the APRS QSY far outweight any potential problems.

    Comments of Geoffrey Dick, WA4IKQ

    Will move only on a coordinated move.

    Comments of Robert Pasquale, wd9bbe

    I think that the idea of a fund to bail out hams is preposterous. This is not a business, its a hobby. If you cant afford your own hobby dont expect others to chip in. I have refrained from coment because the whole thread on QSY'ing to another freq is an embaresment. I canot beleive the level of imaturity of some of the "Big Wigs" on the sig. I cant beleive what a bunch of old ladies hang out on this SIG, that is why i rarely use my call except in personal response to EMAIL.

    Comments of Bob Boehm, n8exf@juno.com

    I am just now getting started in APRS. I have been looking at it for years, time to get involved.

    Comments of Randy Allen, KA0AZS

    This is what I like about amateur radio, people taking time and effort to come up with a reasonable solution to a problem, an idea of how to implement that solution, and getting people involved without waiting for the government or someone else to hand down a "solution"

    Comments of Darrell Sperry, KA4TAR

    Note: This is Replacement Answers To Your Form. I am changing my vote from Difinitely Not to Definitely. Please delete Previous...

    Comments of William Strong, N2VRG

    I operate APRS on a home station and a stand-alone mobile station. The cost for me of changing to 144.390 is only the time it takes to program my radios and tune my antennas. I think the move is a good idea since APRS has moved beyond the experimental stage and, therefore, should be on a frequency other than one designated as experimental in some areas. However, I shall operate APRS on whatever frequency the majority (if not all) the digisites decide to operate on. I have put off purchasing any crystal controlled data radios (like MFJ's) until the frequency issue is resolved.

    Comments of Jim Gifreda, W8MAP

    I do not believe the change is necessary. Has there been an unusual number of complaints from other users of frequencies near our current frequency? I do not know if my current crystal radios will tune down that low. If not, I am out of business!

    Comments of Gerald Stueve, KE4NFJ

    I think it's about time that we moved APRS from an experimental frequency to a prime-time coordinated frequency.

    Comments of Tedd Doda, VE3TJD

    As you know, everyone in Ontario is already on 144.390 Mhz.

    Comments of Jason Greene, N1IIC

    I hope this goes smoothly and doesn't scare anyone away. de Jason n1iic

    Comments of Steve Meuse, N1JFU

    I was at the DCC in October, I think we should get things moving. We're about to put up another DID soon, and would like to put it up on the new freq.

    Comments of Darryl Smith, VK2TDS

    I am in favour of the QSY. I am attempting to get an APRS network up and running here in Sydney, Australia. I am attemptingto get the 144.39 MHz frequency allocated for APRS operations. In Australia we have 144-148 MHz with pages from 148-152 MHz. The low half of 2 meters is good for pagers. I will have to fight some SSB and low signal users, and compete with a beacon 20 KHz away, but I will do it. Watch this space...

    Comments of Joel Michello, KQ4ET

    My digi can be changed with a twist of the dial and effectively it will be changed as of 3-15-98. NO PROBLEM! My attitude is rather harsh, as I say, "no whiners, this is amateur radio and cooperation is our middle name." I am also a part of the NTS Digital Network and outlays are just part of the dues you pay to stay at the forefront of technology. Yes Virginia, hobbies are expensive! 73 Joel AR

    Comments of Matt Harris, KD4PBS

    I plan on installing a wide digi on 145.79, using a Micor, which will have to be re-crystalled and re-tuned if the switch is made. I do not see the price of the crystals being a major investment, however if I owned several digis, this would be a serious argument against moving. I suggest that the official stance should be that until the space station is up and running, we should stay on 145.79. APRS is already well established in this country on 145.79, we should not make any arguments about what other countries are using; we are not the other country, and given the normally short range of 2M transmissions, there shouldn't be any problems with the neighboring countries that use other APRS frequencies. Again, if it aint broke, dont fix it. Once it breaks, (the space station is flying) spend a little money to repair it. -Matt Harris

    Comments of Thomas Beach, N1OPO

    Weak signal people are unhappy about this move. How much are they part of this survey ? It seems that only at APRS users opinions are being viewed. How many weak signal users don't want us ?

    Comments of William Powell, N3PZB

    I have not been active with APRS in the last year, but I have followed the history of the problem and read several of the proposed fixes to solve the problem and this seems to be the most reasonable approach.

    Comments of john dent, wa4mej

    the move to 144.39 will be a problem APRS should be in the packet part of the band and not in the space part..

    Comments of Charles Whicker, K4ITV

    I have been a satellite user since Oscar 6 and a pioneer in this location. I do not think that giving up 145.79 just because of MIR, Shuttle and what ever is to come is proper or right. Maybe so in more populated big cities but I cannot ever see a conflict in rural areas. Just my oponion!

    Comments of John Moyers, N4QEA

    I have 3 sites that will be affected that are XTAL controlled. Since I'm not asking for funds I consider I consider the information as to location etc. to be on a need to know basis. Suffice to say the stations in question are GE MASTER II's or GE MASTER EXEC's. The cost involved will be in the neighborhood of $1,000 if it's no more than a XTAL change and retune equipment. Bear in mind Technician TIME is the bigest expense with old commercial equipment. If the radio's do not shift easily or other problems occur (Intermod) I can see the cost reaching $2,000 per site. Sorry TAPR can't afford this and neither can I.

    Comments of James Gaudet, W1UP

    Comments of Bernie Ortmann, N6UBO

    Thank you for your efforts in looking into QSY.

    Comments of DENNIS BECKNER, WD8SBO


    Comments of Austin Prestwood, Jr., W2HOB

    I have not answered all selections for the very reason thatI didn't ask for funds when I installed my digi and weather sites and I don't intend to ask for assistance to QSY them... they are my responsibility and I intend to act responsibly. This is merely an inconvenience for some of us. However, it is the best for APRS. To have a nation-wide frequency is terrific. The NWS CWA in NJ, DE, EMD, and EPA is inviting all operators to target the weekend of April 4-5 for our "official" QSY... I'll be there. The rest of the network WILL catch up! 73 de Boyd Prestwood W2HOB Section Emergency Coordinator - SNJ Multiple site APRS trustee

    Comments of James Jarvis, WD4EKA

    This change is un-called for, there is a better way. asking digi sop to move a radio 1.4 mhz, come on. Jim

    Comments of Jon Andrews, K1IMD

    What is the big deal? Do to the nature of APRS, a shift in freq is a fraction of the cost than a duplex system (rptr) which happens all the time for interference or coordination reasons. The bigger picture might be the loss of sites due to IM studies that would preclude them from transmitting at a partical site or possibly the cost of doing a site study at a commerical location. However, I must say that I have not been particularly excited on the management of the SAREX program. The "randomness" of making contacts is a bit obsurd! In the 80's & 90's the simplex approach on 145.55 of MIR worked very well for many (me included)... in the high density areas (metro areas) no system will work anyway as I am sure that the rcvr located in space will capute too much anyway to make very useful contacts. 73 de Jon K1IMD NNNN

    Comments of Michael Edwards, KE4YGT

    Being a simple APRS end user with all-VFO rigs, the APRS QSY is simply a matter of changing the memories I use for APRS. I understand the plight however of those with crystal-controlled rigs.. Unfortunately I unable at this time to contribute to the QSY fund. Other than that I have no problem with moving to a different frequency, as long as everyone else moves.

    Comments of Verne Buland, -

    Will move if necessary. How long will it be before the satellite folk will want the NEW frequency also?

    Comments of Robert Wilkins, n6fri

    Northern California is now in the process of shifting frequency to 144.39 MHz. This new APRS frequency has been allocated in the latest NCPA digital band plan for our area. There are gateways to the old 145.01 MHz frequency as well as to the 145.79 MHz Southern California APRS Wide Area Network. The Northern California BBS systems now on 145.79 have all volenteered to move to new BBS frequencies to help make 145.80 a usable space platform frequency.

    Comments of Eddie Foust, WD4JEM

    From all I have read, I still do not see the need to QSY. Maybe TAPER and AMSTAT should stay away from the very band edge like most other operations do. How do we know that 144.39 is clear in all areas for the QSY. We currently have a very nice system here in Georgia and I really would hate to see it die due to a few people wanting to work a space station that is not even in orbit yet. It seems that any body with a pll radio is willing to switch at a minutes notice. They do not think about the cost and time involved to get a good quality narrow band receiver and associated band pass cavities tuned to a new freq. over a meg away. If this switch is not very careful, we will lose several good digi sites in our current networks.

    Comments of David Cooley, N5XMT

    I personally feel the Space program should move their freq to the satelite operations range and leave the ground based APRS alone. They are the only ones affected adversly by APRS and technically are operating in the wrong portion of the 2m band here in the USA. Thanks, Dave

    Comments of Rick Tilton, N4WYK

    Personally I am not wild about the change of frequency. Too close to 2M SSB but yet I plan on working Phase 3D extensively. Feel some are making hasty decisions. We in the SE have a rather large network. Would hate to destroy it. Feel all will cooperate probably but will take time to coordinate it all.

    Comments of John Moore, K1DE

    If we do this, please lets agree on a changeover date.

    Comments of Mike Iszak, VE3XLS

    I think that the QSY is LONG overdue. I say this for a few reasons: 1. 145.790 is the freq for a local PBBS, but that doesn't really matter in the scope of things. 2. 144.390 is the freq for Canada APRS. It just makes sense to have everyone in the same boat, so you don;t have to keep changing freq's on your radio just to keep up. I use a FT-530, but what about those who have a one channel only radio here in Canada? What are they to do when they go to the US, and vice-versa? Thanks Mike VE3XLS-14 :-)

    Comments of Donald Wade, K4DRW

    The purpose of "coordination" for the limited spectrum we have as amateurs is to reduce the "friction" between persons who want to use said spectrum for different reasons. It is well within the scope of true coordination to examine all the benefits and problems with moving an already existing network of ground based digis, etc. It would NOT be in the spirit of "real" amateur radio to just say "HELL NO...We ain't movin!" without examining the reasons for the move, etc and weighing that against the expense and agony of actually doing so. I believe that moving the APRS National freq. to 144.390 MHz is a great idea if it will in fact allow for all amateurs world wide to enjoy such activities as MIREX/SAREX, etc. Also I believe that if we as APRS users are willing to put pride aside and do WHAT'S RIGHT for amateur radio worldwide then the rest of the "coordinating" bodies within our hobby should do the same and also make whatever arrangements are needed to accomodate the APRS users BY GIVING US AN EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL FREQUENCY (similar to the 146.520 simplex calling freq.)accessible by all hams nationwide. A frequency that won't require anymore moving in the future! If 144.390 is that frequency then lets get on with it! Lets move and put this issue behind us!

    Comments of Mark Casey, K1MAP

    The QSY to 144.390 will disable the European end the Trans-Atlantic beacon project, a 3 year old effort by a large group of weak signal operators on the East Coast of the US (the NEWS Group and others), and the West Coast of Europe to complete the first trans-atlantic QSO on 2 meters. Propagation Beacons are active in the UK and Ireland in the 144.400-.406 range now. Use of 144.390 by APRS will severely interfere with present AM operations on the AM National Calling Frequency of 144.400.

    Comments of Michael Bailey, WD5CWZ

    WD5CWZ gate and WD5CWZ-2 digi moved April 4, 1998

    Comments of Guy Story, kc5goi

    I am unable to donate money to the fund but I am also not effected by the QSY. I am currently envolved in getting others envolved in APRS.

    About Us | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2005-2019 Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corp unless otherwise noted.

    facebook twitter utube

    Accept Credit Cards