DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=QqJgEYnLVgc7uih4xUPCeAnSmEonbVt/hoUex44SudXcKzunahIso92FhLC7J2/PqJbo9vCQZAQbfaULeQZQU99dR2kElxBRXPZZBjofT+6fYBXq3eamtDIulZSEMsYHUO4Zh4XDlx85BUKsXa72igqa/8CkbMwyO9EOSAr8fSo=;
References: 
 <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FBCBDA1@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> <518B7455.8000609@broadpark.no>
Message-ID: <1368096290.60555.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 11:44:50 +0100 (BST)
From: M0FMT <m0fmt@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
In-Reply-To: <518B7455.8000609@broadpark.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1690458260-1383470530-1368096290=:60555"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


---1690458260-1383470530-1368096290=:60555
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all=0A=C2=A0=0AIt has been said before that to salami slice such a small=
 allocation as the MF/LF bands is nonsenses.=0A=C2=A0=0AIn any case how man=
y of the "Slicers" use these frequencies? As usual it is those who feel the=
y have the right, will thus be giving the band "Policemen" a mission.=0A=C2=
=A0=0AWhy is it not possible to have these bands organised by the actual us=
ers on a consensual basis rather than have it cast in "stone"?=0A=C2=A0=0AA=
lterations in QRG usage would then be organic and by popular demand and mee=
t the needs of developing modes and operating practise. It will be messy bu=
t I think it's called Democracy which seems to be slipping through the fing=
ers of the regular MF/LF users. After all=C2=A0we do have a forum to air th=
ese issues..=0A=C2=A073 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX=0A=0A=0A>__________________=
______________=0A> From: Steinar Aanesland <saanes@broadpark.no>=0A>To: rsg=
b_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk; "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group=
@blacksheep.org> =0A>Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 11:03=0A>Subject: LF: Re: =
[rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band=0A>  =0A>=0A>This has not be=
en discussed in the Norwegian ham community, and because=0A>of LA4LN's solo=
 act, I am not a member of NRRL any more.=0A>=0A>LA5VNA Steinar=0A>loc:JO59=
jq=0A>=0A>=0A>Den 09.05.2013 10:36, skrev Rik Strobbe:=0A>> Dear all,=0A>> =
=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> those active on 630m might be interested in the outcome o=
f the discussion of paper C4_06 (Bandplan for the 630 m band proposed by NR=
RL) at the Committee C4 (HF Matters) Interim Meeting (20-21 April 2013, Vie=
nna):=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> 4.5 Paper C4_06 was presented by LA4LN=0A>> RS=
GB stated that they support the principle of a band plan, but that it is to=
o early to have a formal plan until the usage is better known.=0A>> DARC st=
ated that the usage of the band at the moment doesn=E2=80=99t really requir=
e a band plan.=0A>> DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage" (see Annex 1).=
=0A>> ZRS asked if the CW DX frequency could be moved a little higher up th=
e band.=0A>> DARC noted that there are still 4 NDBs in the band. They also =
asked if the QRSS CW segment could be moved out of the CW part of the band =
as it is decoded as a digimode. DARC also said there is currently no need f=
or a coordinated beacon segment as we can use the existing NDBs.=0A>> OeVSV=
 said we should observe the band usage for a while before deciding on a fix=
ed band plan and suggested that centres of activity could be used also.=0A>=
> UBA stated it is too early to propose a band plan.=0A>> It was agreed to =
show current plan as proposed usage and to review at the next general confe=
rence.=0A>> CRC stated that we should not show a plan as the current users =
would not appreciate being told how to use the band.=0A>> The meeting agree=
d to change the wording to a =E2=80=98proposed usage=E2=80=99 plan and that=
 frequencies should be referred to as centre of activities.=0A>> DARC intro=
duced a plan "proposed usage".=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> [cid:2bd9b952-2278-41=
48-b306-9c41271fd880]=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> 73, Rik=C2=A0 ON7YD - OR7T=0A>=
> =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>    
---1690458260-1383470530-1368096290=:60555
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ar=
ial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Hi all</span></div><d=
iv><span></span>&nbsp;</div><div><span>It has been said before that to sala=
mi slice such a small allocation as the MF/L<span id=3D"misspell-1">F</span=
> bands is nonsenses.</span></div><div><span></span>&nbsp;</div><div><span>=
In any case how many of the "Slicers" use these <span id=3D"misspell-2"><sp=
an>frequencies</span></span>? As usual it is those who feel they have the r=
ight, will thus be giving the band "Policemen" a mission.</span></div><div>=
<span></span>&nbsp;</div><div><span>Why is it not possible to have these ba=
nds organised by the actual users on a <span id=3D"misspell-3"><span>consen=
sual</span></span> basis rather than have it cast in "stone"?</span></div><=
div><span></span>&nbsp;</div><div><span>Alterations in QRG <span id=3D"miss=
pell-5"><span>usage</span></span> would then be <span
 id=3D"misspell-6"><span>organic</span></span> and by popular demand and me=
et the needs of developing modes and operating <span id=3D"misspell-7"><spa=
n>practise</span></span>. It will be messy but I think it's called <span id=
=3D"misspell-8"><span>Democracy</span></span> which seems to be slipping th=
rough the fingers of the regular MF/LF users. After all&nbsp;we do have a <=
span id=3D"misspell-4"><span>forum to air these issues.</span></span>.</spa=
n></div><div></div><div>&nbsp;73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX<br></div><div> <bl=
ockquote style=3D"padding-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 5px; bor=
der-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style=
: solid;">  <div style=3D"font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-s=
ize: 12pt;"> <div style=3D"font-family: times new roman, new york, times, s=
erif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div style=3D"margin: 5px 0px; p=
adding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height=
: 0;
 font-size: 0px;" class=3D"hr" contentEditable=3D"false" readonly=3D"true">=
</div>  <font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bol=
d;">From:</span></b> Steinar Aanesland &lt;saanes@broadpark.no&gt;<br> <b><=
span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.=
co.uk; "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" &lt;rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org&gt; =
<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, 9 May=
 2013, 11:03<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> =
LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band<br> </font> </div> <=
div class=3D"y_msg_container"><br>This has not been discussed in the Norweg=
ian ham community, and because<br>of LA4LN's solo act, I am not a member of=
 NRRL any more.<br><br>LA5VNA Steinar<br>loc:JO59jq<br><br><br>Den 09.05.20=
13 10:36, skrev Rik Strobbe:<br>&gt; Dear all,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; <b=
r>&gt; those active on 630m might be interested in the outcome of the discu=
ssion of
 paper C4_06 (Bandplan for the 630 m band proposed by NRRL) at the Committe=
e C4 (HF Matters) Interim Meeting (20-21 April 2013, Vienna):<br>&gt; <br>&=
gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; 4.5 Paper C4_06 was presented by LA4LN<br>&gt; RSGB s=
tated that they support the principle of a band plan, but that it is too ea=
rly to have a formal plan until the usage is better known.<br>&gt; DARC sta=
ted that the usage of the band at the moment doesn=E2=80=99t really require=
 a band plan.<br>&gt; DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage" (see Annex 1)=
.<br>&gt; ZRS asked if the CW DX frequency could be moved a little higher u=
p the band.<br>&gt; DARC noted that there are still 4 NDBs in the band. The=
y also asked if the QRSS CW segment could be moved out of the CW part of th=
e band as it is decoded as a digimode. DARC also said there is currently no=
 need for a coordinated beacon segment as we can use the existing NDBs.<br>=
&gt; OeVSV said we should observe the band usage for a while before
 deciding on a fixed band plan and suggested that centres of activity could=
 be used also.<br>&gt; UBA stated it is too early to propose a band plan.<b=
r>&gt; It was agreed to show current plan as proposed usage and to review a=
t the next general conference.<br>&gt; CRC stated that we should not show a=
 plan as the current users would not appreciate being told how to use the b=
and.<br>&gt; The meeting agreed to change the wording to a =E2=80=98propose=
d usage=E2=80=99 plan and that frequencies should be referred to as centre =
of activities.<br>&gt; DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage".<br>&gt; <br=
>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; [cid:2bd9b952-2278-4148-b306-9c41271fd880]<br>&gt; =
<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; 73, Rik&nbsp; ON7YD - OR7T<br>&gt; <br><br><br><=
br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote>  </div></div></body></html>
---1690458260-1383470530-1368096290=:60555--