Date: Fri, 13 Jul 01 00:16:43 GMT
Message-ID: <1059@9A0TCP>
From: "Tom" <dl8aam@9a0tcp.ampr.org>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: License for below 9 kHz!!!!!
In-reply-to: your message of Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:56:33 -0400.             <000f01c10b25$eac09670$0a00a8c0@ThreeLakes.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Hi !
my ITU rules book said
'below 9 kHz: NOT ALLOCATED (Footnotes 444, 445)'

RR 444: Administrations authorizing the use of frequencies below 9 kHz shall
ensure taht no harmful interference is caused therby to the services to which
the bands above 9 kHz are allocated (see RR 1816).

RR 445: Administrations conducting scientific research using frequencies
below 9 kHz are urged to advise other administrations that may be concerned
in order that such reseach may be afforded all practicable protection from
harmful interference.

So according to my understand of the ITU rules, the frequencies below 9 kHz are
nor allocated to any special service BUT that the administration have to
be sure that the operations works 'ok' and that they even have to inform
other administrations about any tests. So below 9 kHz is not a
free-bander-area, it has to be still 'administrated'.

73, Tom - DL8AAM
PS: They use typical the word 'shall', and I learned means in laws
'have to if possible' and not a phrase for a volunteer 'shall' ....hi
at least in the german law sciene (we have the phrases 'could' (means should),
'should (means have to if possible, means normally 'have to') and 'must' or
'have to' (means a 'more strenght have to'). Just by reading these two RRs
(maybe any other give more 'freedom' to the administrations)  any
administration which give below 9 KHz free/unadministrated act illegal, at
least in the sence of the ITU. ?!?!??