Hi David, and others.
I think you hit upon a important but discouraging
poing David. I dont think that the equipment
manufactures really listen to what hams want. I don't
know how they come up with their product lines, other
than most HTs, in my opinion, are probably converted
designs from their commercial lines. This is one
reason why 222 suffers, because there are no
commercial freqs right around there, so no commercial
HTs to be made for that range. I wholeheartedly
commend Kenwood for putting 220 on the F6. 1296 would
have been nice also. With those 4 bands it would be
an unbeatable rig.
I think there are two other perception problems facing
222 also:
1. How many times do you hear that it is a US only or
US and Canada only band? Almost everyone believes it,
including some pretty serious VHFers we have in our
local area, but it isn't true. It is a Region 2 band,
which means it is also a ham band in the rest of NA
and South America. True, those areas are not as much
of a market as Japan or Europe, but the market is
larger than most think. Open up your latest repeater
directory and notice that there are 222 machines in
South America.
2. One of the main selling points that the ARRL makes
for the 222 band is that no one is on it. That don't
come right out and say that, but they talk about how
it is so uncrowded, etc. It doesn't take much to see
through what they are saying. In many areas 2 meter
FM is dying compared to what it was in the 80s, when I
was first licensed. I can only imaging what 222 must
be like. We have no 222 machines in Southwest
Oklahoma, but we do have 6-10 local hams with 222 FM
capability, so you can get a few points and
multipliers in every contest, and even talk on simplex
once in a while. It is encouraging to see the locals
buying 222 gear for that reason.
Back to my original point, though. I don't know how
to get the manufactures to listen to us. As Caity has
pointed out, though, we need to back up our requests
with action. Everyone wanted a 220 all mode radio so
Icom developed one, and then no one bought it. part
of the problem might have been the price. Once it
came out it was apparent that it would be much cheaper
to go the transverter route. If we want manufacturers
to listen to us, though, they have to believe that we
will follow through on our requests and make it
profitable for them
73s John NE0P
--- "David M. Upton" <david@wb1cmg.mv.com> wrote:
> I had to jump on here and say that I agree with John
> in this case.
> Where is that 6/222/903 rig or HT? Where is the
> innovation or at least
> something different than 2/432 occasionally 1296? I
> bugged every
> manufacturer I saw about 903 and 222 rigs. Some
> listened and some
> didn't. I made a point to ignore for future
> reference those that
> didn't or were not taking me seriously. Let's get
> some new marketing
> blood in the feeder organizations to the the Far
> East that don't think
> that slugging it out on 20 meter contests is the
> high point of amateur
> evolution.
>
> David, WB1CMG
>
>
> John Geiger wrote:
> >
> > Hi Caity, and others,
> >
> > I was noticing the same thing the other day. Icom
> > does seem to have given up on 220, as I don't
> think
> > they make any rig that covers 220 now. Don't know
> if
> > they got burned too bad on the 375A or what. BTW,
> if
> > Icom has any left over in their warehouse, they
> should
> > look at what they are going for now. Icom does
> > deserve special mention, though, for the T81 which
> did
> > bring 1.2g capabilities to more people at an
> > affordable price. It has been worth a few contest
> > QSOs and 3 grids towards my VUCC.
> >
> > The more disturbing trend is how manufactures
> think we
> > are all going to become SWLs. Most of the new HTs
> > cover HF, wideband receive, etc., but very limited
> > transmit. Give me an extra transmit band anyday
> over
> > HF receive on an HT. In fact, I don't want HF
> > receive. It has to be frustrating to be out in
> the
> > field and hearing all the DX I am missing!
> >
> > Kenwood did add 220 to the F6 (great job), and
> Yaesu
> > made an attempt at 220 in the VX7R, and even
> alinco
> > and ADI are making 220 HTs, but when is the first
> > Quint bander coming out. Icom did the quad band
> > concept, too band they discontinued it-now lets
> take a
> > T81 and add 220, and find a way to open up the
> > transmit for 903!!
> >
> > 73s JOhn NE0P
> >
> > --- caitlynmaire@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > Hi, John, and everyone else,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:09 -0800 (PST)
> > > John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Very interesting discussion...
> > >
> > > > I agree that the Icom IC970H is considered the
> top
> > > of
> > > > the line VHF/UHF rig, and I believe that it
> is,
> > > and it
> > > > still commands a very good price. The one
> > > shortcoming
> > > > with it is that it is a satellite rig-that
> means
> > > that
> > > > it has no 6 meters,
> > >
> > > I believe Icom assumes that if you have an
> IC-970H
> > > you will also have
> > > one of their high end HF rigs, all of which have
> 6
> > > meters. Considering
> > > what the IC-575H is going for on the used market
> > > nowadays, having one
> > > additional rig (instead of a shack in a box)
> doesn't
> > > seem like such a
> > > bad thing to me.
> > >
> > > > no 220
> > >
> > > Icom has long abandoned the 222MHz band. It
> isn't a
> > > ham band in Japan
> > > and Europe, and even in the U.S. demand was
> minimal.
> > > Take a look how
> > > many FT-736Rs have the 222 module compared to
> the
> > > total number out
> > > there. Take a look at how many IC-375As they
> > > managed to sell. I think
> > > this was, more than anything, a marketing
> decision.
> > > They certainly
> > > could have made a 222 module for the rig.
> > >
> > > > and the 2.4 module is for
> > > > the wrong part of the 13cm band.
> > >
> > > Not in Japan, it's not. Their band is much
> smaller
> > > than ours. Was the
> > > 13cm module even sold in the US? I don't think
> so.
> > >
> > > > That seems to be
> > > > Icom's dirction today-make all of their VHF
> rigs
> > > > geared only to satellite users.
> > >
> > > Not exactly. I think they are geared to the
> > > Japanese market, not the
> > > U.S. market.
> > >
> > > > Yaesu is doing the
> > > > same thing.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > > The beauty of the FT736 was that it was a
> > > > satellite rig that was also geared towards
> > > terrestrial
> > > > operation-hence the 220 and 6 modules.
> > >
> > > It also had a mediocre receiver. The FT-736R
> was
> > > simply the best
> > > all-in-one budget solution. Serious VHF/UHFers
> > > prefer transverters for
> > > good reason: they outperform the FT-736R in
> almost
> > > every way. Ditto
> > > the FT-847. The IC-970H and IC-x75 series realy
> > > could hold their own,
> > > performance-wise. Pity there isn't the demand
> in
> > > the U.S. for the
> > > IC-970H or an updated version.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Caity
> > > KU4QD
> > > >
> > > > I am curious as to why there is this satellite
> > > focus.
> > > > Surely there must be more hams doing
> terrestrial
> > > work
> > > > than satellite work
> > > >
> > > > 73s John NE0P
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- caitlynmaire@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > The closest thing today would be the Icom
> > > IC-970J,
> > > > > the Japanese version
> > > > > of the IC-970H, which is still sold in
> Japan.
> > > We
> > > > > Americans wouldn't pay
> > > > > the big bucks so it was discontinued here.
> No
> > > 6m,
> > > > > but a fabulous
> > > > > 2m/70cm/23cm rig. I got to play with one
> and
> > > > > decided that if I ever won
> > > > > the lottery... Every time I see an IC-970H
> with
> > > the
> > > > > 23cm module it
> > > > > *still* goes for a lot of green.
> > > > >
> > > > > 73,
> > > > > Caity
> > > > > KU4QD
> > > > > ------
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|