Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dk07.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dk07.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.180.11]) by air-dd01.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDD012-862f4d35dd84161; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:35:48 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk07.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0EB5D38000093; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:35:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PfGOL-0003WL-Nc for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:34:53 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PfGOK-0003WB-Vb for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:34:52 +0000 Received: from out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.242]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PfGOI-0005CM-F8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:34:52 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8FAF5sNU1cEY30/2dsb2JhbACCPY9iA5Iyc8JChVAEgV+MfYJe X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,339,1291593600"; d="scan'208,217";a="487486448" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.17.141.244]) by out1.ip06ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 18 Jan 2011 18:34:42 +0000 Message-ID: <005701cbb73e$5ccee770$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:34:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY=0.126 Subject: LF: Re: VLF Earth Mode does NOT need an NoV - official at last Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01CBB73E.5C982000" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db40b4d35dd822d67 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01CBB73E.5C982000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Two issues here No NOV required for Earth Mode (conduction/induction) applicable to Ca= ve divers where it is not intended to propagate a signal into the ethe= r, but to communicate through the earth. however Since it seems to be the intention by the majority posting on this ref= lector interested in frequencies around 9 Kcs and below to propagate/e= mit a radio signal to be intercepted some kilometres or hundreds of ki= lokemetres then a NOV or Licence seems necessary. so=20 what is the object of this clarification, it seems irrelevant to the= intentions of most engaged in VLF experiments as far as I can make ou= t. ie everyone is trying to emit a RF signal with the best Far Field cov= erage hoping to cover the best possible range, hundreds of Kilometres. Is someone trying to hoodwink OFCOM. g3kev =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roger Lapthorn=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org ; G6ALB ; sub9khz@yahoogroups.com= =20 Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:11 PM Subject: LF: VLF Earth Mode does NOT need an NoV - official at last Today I received this letter from OFCOM, which clarifies the legalit= y of operating so called "earth mode" (conduction/induction via the gr= ound) experiments at frequencies below 9kHz in the UK. Note the senten= ce in Paul's letter saying, "We would not normally issue NoVs for comm= unications using non-wireless telegraphy apparatus/stations i.e. wher= e you rely only on conducted emissions and where there are no intentio= nal radiated emissions.".=20 Wanting to check earth mode propagation behaviour at a series of fre= quencies below 9kHz to see how results compared (earlier tests at 0.83= 8kHz seemed around 10dB better than at 8.76kHz), I asked OFCOM if I ne= eded an NoV extension to be legal. One could also argue that such test= s at frequencies above 9kHz would also be legal as long as it does not= cause any "Undue Interference to any wireless telegraphy" and one was= not intending to radiate. This sounds a wholly pragmatic answer from a government body.=20 Roger, Rod Wilkinson has now left Ofcom , so I=92m responding to your que= ry.=20 You should seek you own legal advice as Ofcom is unable to give le= gal advice, however, we would issue NoVs, where appropriate, for wirel= ess telegraphy apparatus/stations.=20 In the case of the 9 kHz band NoV we currently stipulate the frequ= ency band only around 9 kHz as discussed with the Met Office and we do= not intend to issue NoVs for lower frequencies in the band. We would= not normally issue NoVs for communications using non-wireless telegra= phy apparatus/stations i.e. where you rely only on conducted emission= s and where there are no intentional radiated emissions.=20 I would also draw your attention to other relevant legislation (e.= g. Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006) and the Terms of the Amateur Licence= and in particular to clause 7(3); =93Notwithstanding any other terms= of this Licence, the Licensee shall ensure that the Radio Equipment= is designed, constructed, maintained and used so that its use does no= t cause any Undue Interference to any wireless telegraphy=94. I am also copying in Ash Gohil in the Ofcom Licensing Centre who= is in the team that Rod worked in. Please address any further queries= to him in the first instance. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Paul :: Paul Fonseka Spectrum Policy Group-Business Radio +44 (0) 20 7981 3116 paul.fonseka@ofcom.org.uk=20 Hope this is of interest. 73s Roger G3XBM --=20 g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ www.g3xbm.co.uk www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01CBB73E.5C982000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Two issues here
No NOV required for Earth Mode=20 (conduction/induction) applicable to Cave divers where it is not inten= ded to=20 propagate a signal into the ether, but to communicate through the=20 earth.
however
Since it seems to be the intention by= the majority=20 posting on this reflector interested in frequencies around 9 Kcs and= =20 below to propagate/emit a radio signal to be intercepted some kil= ometres or=20 hundreds of kilokemetres then a NOV or Licence seems necessary.=
so
what is the object of this clari= fication, it=20 seems irrelevant to the intentions of most engaged in VLF experiments= as far as=20 I can make out.
ie everyone is trying to emit a RF si= gnal=20  with the best Far Field coverage hoping to cover the best= possible=20 range, hundreds of Kilometres.
Is someone trying to=20 hoodwink OFCOM.
g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20= 11 3:11=20 PM
Subject: LF: VLF Earth Mode= does NOT need=20 an NoV - official at last

Today I received this letter from OFCO= M, which=20 clarifies the legality of operating so called "earth mode"=20 (conduction/induction via the ground) experiments at frequencies bel= ow 9kHz in=20 the UK. Note the sentence in Paul's letter saying, "We would not normally issue NoVs for=20 communications using non-wireless telegraphy apparatus/stations i.e.= =20  where you rely only on conducted emissions and where there are= no=20 intentional radiated emissions.".

Wanting to chec= k=20 earth mode propagation behaviour at a series of frequencies below= 9kHz=20 to see how results compared (earlier tests at 0.838kHz seemed around= 10dB=20 better than at 8.76kHz), I asked OFCOM if I needed an NoV extension= to be=20 legal. One could also argue that such tests at frequencies above<= /I> 9kHz=20 would also be legal as long as it does not cause any= "Undue=20 Interference to any wireless telegraphy" and one was not intending= to=20 radiate.

This sounds a wholly pragmatic answer from a= government=20 body.

Roger,

 

Rod Wilkinson has now left Ofc= om , so I=92m=20 responding to your query.

 

You should seek you own legal= advice as=20 Ofcom is unable to give legal advice, however, we would issue NoVs= , where=20 appropriate, for wireless telegraphy apparatus/stations.

 

In the case of the 9 kHz band= NoV we=20 currently stipulate the frequency band only around 9 kHz as discus= sed with=20 the Met Office and we do not intend to issue NoVs for lower freque= ncies in=20 the band. We would not normally issue NoVs for communications usin= g=20 non-wireless telegraphy apparatus/stations i.e.  where you re= ly only on=20 conducted emissions and where there are no intentional radiated em= issions.=20

 

I would also draw your attenti= on to other=20 relevant legislation (e.g. Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006) and the= Terms of=20 the Amateur Licence and in particular to clause 7(3);=20 =93Notwithstanding any other terms of this Licence, the= Licensee=20 shall ensure that the Radio Equipment is designed, constructed, ma= intained=20 and used so that its use does not cause any Undue Interference to= any=20 wireless telegraphy=94.

 

I am also copying in Ash Gohil= in the Ofcom=20 Licensing Centre who is in the team that Rod worked in. Please add= ress any=20 further queries to him in the first instance.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Kind regards,

 

Paul

 

:: Paul Fonseka
<= /B>Spectrum=20 Policy Group-Business Radio
+44 (0) 20 7981 3116
paul.fonseka@= ofcom.org.uk=20


Hope this is of interest.

73s
= Roger=20 G3XBM
--
g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
www.g3xbm.co.uk
www.youtube.com/user= /g3xbm
G= 3XBM   GQRP 1678    ISWL=20 G11088
3D""
   
 
3D""   <= IMG style=3D"VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle" alt=3D"" = src=3D"sacore:empty.gif">      
 =20
 =20
=
------=_NextPart_000_0054_01CBB73E.5C982000--