SR wrote in :

Hello I am a new ham and i have a friend in
Parkersburg, West Virginia. He has a 2 meter radio and echolink.

I do not have echolink.

Does anyone know of a repeater close to where I am, that I
would be able to hit with my 2 meter radio Radio Shack HTX 202 144-148
MHZ.

I live in Queens County NY.

Any information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

73

Steven


I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
should know unless they're also clueless no-coders. If all else fails,
you can take your HTX 202 back to Radio Shack and exchange blank stares
with the clerk.

SC

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
SR wrote in :
snip
I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
snip
SC

Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they can
access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider it to
be "real" radio and as such, are often stuck in their ways and slow to
accept the new form of communication on the service.
It is similar to many of the other forms that were incorporated into amateur
radio and were slow to be accepted, such as SSB, SSTV, even ATV. I don't
think any of these are any less ham radio than CW is ham radio.

Pat Stevens wrote:

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
SR wrote in :
snip
I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
snip
SC

Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they can
access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider it to
be "real" radio and as such..

That's because it's not 'real radio'..

Get a grip and get a clue.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Pat Stevens wrote:
snip
Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they
can
access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider it
to
be "real" radio and as such..
It is similar to many of the other forms that were incorporated into
amateur
radio and were slow to be accepted, such as SSB, SSTV, even ATV. I don't
think any of these are any less ham radio than CW is ham radio.

That's because it's not 'real radio'..

Get a grip and get a clue.


Well, as far as I know, SSB, SSTV, even ATV, along with IRLP and even
echolink as long as you are using a radio at one of the ends of it during a
conversation, would all be considered "real radio."
Talk about getting a grip and getting a clue. That isn't even an arguement.
At least try to make a point and back your claim.

Echolink is communication on the internet. Millions of people do that
daily, with no license needed.

You can do the same thing with a cellphone.


There is nothing wrong with Echolink, but it is silly and dishonest to call
it communicating by radio, which is what hams do.

When a person says he "worked" Germany on Echolink, he is either mistaken
or dishonest. What he has "worked" is his local telephone connection,
usually a distance of about five miles. It is hard for me to believe that
this person could really believe that he "worked" Germany. If I pick up
my cellphone and call Germany, can I get a QSL card for it, and get ARRL
credit ??? Huh ??

It utterly amazes me that a person would study for a ham exam, only to use
Echolink, when you can do the very same thing with any computer or
telephone. There is no ham license or ham equipment needed to talk on the
phone or on the computer. Ever heard of ICQ and other chat programs ?
Ever heard of Voice Over Internet ?

Lots of folks have fun on Echolink. For that reason, I truly think it is
Great !!! Just don't pretend that it is ham radio when the world knows
that it isn't.


Well, that's my two cents worth. See ya on the radio waves !!


73 de Jim K4PYT

"James" wrote in message
. ..
Echolink is communication on the internet. Millions of people do that
daily, with no license needed.

You can do the same thing with a cellphone.


There is nothing wrong with Echolink, but it is silly and dishonest to
call
it communicating by radio, which is what hams do.

When a person says he "worked" Germany on Echolink, he is either
mistaken
or dishonest. What he has "worked" is his local telephone connection,
usually a distance of about five miles. It is hard for me to believe
that
this person could really believe that he "worked" Germany. If I pick
up
my cellphone and call Germany, can I get a QSL card for it, and get ARRL
credit ??? Huh ??

It utterly amazes me that a person would study for a ham exam, only to use
Echolink, when you can do the very same thing with any computer or
telephone. There is no ham license or ham equipment needed to talk on the
phone or on the computer. Ever heard of ICQ and other chat programs ?
Ever heard of Voice Over Internet ?

Lots of folks have fun on Echolink. For that reason, I truly think it is
Great !!! Just don't pretend that it is ham radio when the world knows
that it isn't.


Well, that's my two cents worth. See ya on the radio waves !!


73 de Jim K4PYT


I agree that echolink, on its own isn't radio, but that is why I added that
at least on one of the ends should be connected by radio. Preferably, your
end would be at least using the radio, or what is the purpose of getting a
radio license.
As for just calling someone in Germany, I can't say that I would know too
many people that I could just randomly call and would (a) be willing to talk
to me and (b) that I would be able to understand, since I don't know German.
At least, with ham radio you have a start, since you usually can hear them
before you start talking to them. I have never used echolink to
communicate, so I am not exactly sure how that is kept straight on there,
though.
Also, if I were to talk to someone in Germany, by echolink or IRLP, I would
state it as that and not that I "worked" them. I agree that there is much
more to be said for working a station by HF, than when someone is doing by
way of the Internet. But it is a form of communication that is available to
hams and should be exploited as much as possible, so that it can be used in
any times of need.
I am sure that probably locally during Katrina, all Internet was out, but if
someone was on the fringe of the outage and could reach a repeater that was
linked to IRLP or echolink, then he would be able to communicate anywhere
and get messages into out of the area by that means. Not quite as good as
HF, but if you don't have the privileges, then it is a start.

"Pat Stevens" wrote in
news

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
SR wrote in
:
snip
I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
snip
SC

Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they
can access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider
it to be "real" radio and as such, are often stuck in their ways and
slow to accept the new form of communication on the service.


Echolink isn't real radio, it's Retard DX.

"No internet = The band ain't open." ROFL


It is similar to many of the other forms that were incorporated into
amateur radio and were slow to be accepted, such as SSB, SSTV, even ATV.
I don't think any of these are any less ham radio than CW is ham radio.


RTTY, SSTV, CW, AMTOR, PSK, PACKET, ATV, etc. are all real. No
internet required.

SC

James wrote:
Echolink is communication on the internet. Millions of people do that
daily, with no license needed.

You can do the same thing with a cellphone.


There is nothing wrong with Echolink, but it is silly and dishonest to call
it communicating by radio, which is what hams do.

When a person says he "worked" Germany on Echolink, he is either mistaken
or dishonest. What he has "worked" is his local telephone connection,
usually a distance of about five miles. It is hard for me to believe that
this person could really believe that he "worked" Germany. If I pick up
my cellphone and call Germany, can I get a QSL card for it, and get ARRL
credit ??? Huh ??

It utterly amazes me that a person would study for a ham exam, only to use
Echolink, when you can do the very same thing with any computer or
telephone. There is no ham license or ham equipment needed to talk on the
phone or on the computer. Ever heard of ICQ and other chat programs ?
Ever heard of Voice Over Internet ?

Lots of folks have fun on Echolink. For that reason, I truly think it is
Great !!! Just don't pretend that it is ham radio when the world knows
that it isn't.


Well, that's my two cents worth. See ya on the radio waves !!


73 de Jim K4PYT


Actually, you DO have to have a license to use Echolink. It won't
activate without a confirmed callsign. Because Echolink connects to
radio equipment that can transmit over amateur frequencies, you are
required to be a licensed amateur to use it. In that way, it differs
tremendously from standard Internet communication software.

As for whether or not it's "real radio," by using my 440 HT, I've called
one of our local repeaters that connects to Echolink. Via that link, I
spoke with someone in Australia who was using a mobile radio to
communicate with a local Echolink node in his area. Neither of us was
directly using a computer yet Echolink allowed two licensed hams to
communicate around the world.

To say that using Echolink like this isn't real radio is like saying
that using repeaters isn't real radio.

But this doesn't mean that Echolink will or should ever replace standard
ham radio. I also see the value of continuing to require code testing
in order to get greater privileges.

And those are my two cents.

Jim
KI4OCC/AG
(Yep, I passed my code test this weekend!)

Jim, you have simply used the internet to talk to Austrailia. Nothing
more, nothing less. And, you are WRONG about one thing........ you DON'T
have to have a license to do that. NO person using a cellphone or
internet chat who is talking to a person in Austrailia has a license to do
that. It simply isn't needed. No nation or government requires it.

Your 440 contact to your local repeater was the only radio communication
that you had. If you were five miles from your repeater, then you had a
five mile contact. The internet did the rest. That is fine, but you did
not work Austrailia, and would not be able to confirm it or get ARRL credit
for it. You can only get confirmation for two-way RADIO contacts. As
you know, you have to have a license for that.


73 de Jim K4PYT

James wrote:
Jim, you have simply used the internet to talk to Austrailia. Nothing
more, nothing less. And, you are WRONG about one thing........ you DON'T
have to have a license to do that. NO person using a cellphone or
internet chat who is talking to a person in Austrailia has a license to do
that. It simply isn't needed. No nation or government requires it.

Your 440 contact to your local repeater was the only radio communication
that you had. If you were five miles from your repeater, then you had a
five mile contact. The internet did the rest. That is fine, but you did
not work Austrailia, and would not be able to confirm it or get ARRL credit
for it. You can only get confirmation for two-way RADIO contacts. As
you know, you have to have a license for that.


73 de Jim K4PYT


Oh, I'm not saying that I'm going to ask for a QSL card or anything like
that and it's not what I would call a DX contact (like I hope to be
making on my HF rig). I won't call it "working" Australia. I don't
think that the ARRL should ever consider giving credit for it. But we
did use radio.

Using a cellphone? I agree... no license. But I've never used my
cellphone to talk with people randomly around the world to get an idea
of how people in different locations live. That's not what the
cellphone is for.

Using an internet chat program? Again, I agree... no license. But many
people in internet chat rooms or using chat programs tend to feel that
the anonymity of the internet gives them some kind of special
dispensation to behave like total idiots. Just look at some of the
conversations that occur in the newsgroups (someone I have in my
newsgroup filters comes to mind at this time). And, again, I don't
often just chat with someone randomly just to see how his/her day is
going, what the weather is like and so on.

Using Echolink? You need to be licensed to use it. In that way, it
differs from standard internet chat. And talking via Echolink still
requires you to follow the same regulations and restrictions as using
any other kind of repeater. You still need to identify using your
callsign and you have to keep the language clean. The callsign means
that there's no hiding behind the anonymity that typical internet chat
allows and the regulations regarding language make people behave
themselves better than typical internet chat. So, IMHO, that makes it
far superior to ICQ, YIM or all the other standard internet chat software.

I think the problem here is one of definitions and splitting hairs.
I'll be the first to admit that talking to Australia via Echolink isn't
the same as talking to someone in Ohio with my HF rig despite the
difference in distance. But the idea that I can sit in my truck with an
HT and chat with people around the world because this new bit of
technology is pretty cool and something I'll never be able to do working
directly radio to radio (unless some unforeseen and miraculous bit of
propagation occurs).

In that way, I think that Echolink has its place in amateur radio. It's
a means of bringing together people with a common hobby and interests in
a civilized manner. I think that's why most of us get into ham radio;
we like talking with other ordinary people from different locations for
no particular reason other than being interested in people in general.

So when it comes to DX bragging rights, I fully agree with you. But
when it comes to the place of Echolink in amateur radio, I think it's
got its place and I hope people can see it that way.

73!

Jim
KI4OCC/AG
(Does passing my code test give ME some bragging rights? grin)