I would like to suggest moving the weekly simplex net off of 146.520. I understand the reasoning behind conducting the net there, but there is also a very good argument for not holding it on 146.520. I understand the initial reasoning for holding the net on 146.520, it is probably the most monitored simplex frequency on 2 Meters; holding it there would possibly generate more check-ins from those monitoring the frequency. This is admirable but it also goes against the logic behind the use of 146.520.
146.520 is the National FM Voice Calling Frequency. A calling frequency is supposed to be used for initial contact, with extended communications moved off to another frequency. Conducting a net on the calling frequency is therefore contrary to the band plan; it prevents the use of the frequency for it’s intended purpose.
Once again, I understand that the argument is that a net moved off 146.520 would not have as many check-ins because it would not be as “visible.” I offer two opposing arguments:
1. As long as the net has been running, we have an established base of participants. Essentially the same operators check into the net each week. If you run announcements over a month period on both the club nets, the simplex net, and the ARES net it should provide plenty of heads-up on a frequency change.
2. One could argue that conducting the net on 146.520 could attract hams traveling through the area. You could attempt to attract transients monitoring 146.520 by making an announcement on 146.520 about the net prior to the beginning of the net (a proper use of the calling frequency).
So what frequency do we use? SERA lists the following simplex frequencies that do not offer a conflict with repeater inputs: 146.535, 146.550, 146.565, 146.580, 146.595, 147.510, 147.525, 147.540, 147.555, 147.570, and 147.585.
From that list above, I would suggest two frequencies: 146.550 and 147.555. Both have a history of use in this area as a common simplex frequency for 146.550 and 147.550 saw long use a previous simplex net frequency in Savannah. Of the two, I would suggest 146.550 for the simple reason that it Is closer to 146.520 and would be easier to stumble across during a search.
We have to find a balance between generating activity and respecting the band plan. At this point, are we really generating any additional activity by conducting the net on 146.520. This is nothing personal, so I hope no one takes it that way. It’s just a suggestion on my part to allow us to operate more in accordance with the 2 Meter band plan. Any decision to move or not to move the net will have no effect on my participation in the net.
Mac McCormick III
KF4LMT