Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 7CCF2380000A6; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 07:29:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr6ON-0003Hv-74 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:28:55 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr6OM-0003Hm-Ez for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:28:54 +0000 Received: from smtpout1.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.29] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tr6OJ-0008RO-BM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:28:53 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.8.5]) by mwinf5d11 with ME id joUU1k00R06WpAS03oUUdj; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:28:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1C7A65A624A4445F8D8D9811C8C27B15@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:28:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Colin, I'm concerned your in receipt of direct and abusive email over this subject CW unfortunately in this context , being once a professional occupation and operating band , will raise heated issues [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.29 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 190365b34c71d69fe32c8aff19377b78 Subject: Re: Re[5]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01CDEA77.0000C270" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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: 3039ac1d7b8d50e6cb3f38dc X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CDEA77.0000C270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colin, I'm concerned your in receipt of direct and abusive email over = this subject=20 CW unfortunately in this context , being once a professional = occupation and operating band , will raise heated issues =20 What ever peoples views and opinions , such tactics are far beyond = the limits of acceptability=20 Im sure other group members are of a similar opinion ? 73 -Graham G0NBD From: M5FRA - Colin=20 Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:54 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re[5]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Roger, thank you for your support. I must admit to being very disillusioned = with the response I have received and do not like the abusive direct = emails from anonymous senders. I decided today to give up ion MF as it = should be fun rather than conflict. I know I should have known better = and could have phrased my emails better but I always had a smile on my = face which is hard to convey electronically.=20 MF is difficult here as my antenna is in the neighbours garden, they = happen to be the in laws! They have also reported Morse code coming over = their wireless! They are very good about it all but I do not want to = push it too much. I have an antenna down lead switch box (vacuum relay) = and an coax switch that needs to be installed yet that means a small = shed/box in their flower bed. So, all in all may ditch the experiment = and return to HF QRP. Colin - M5FRA m5fra.org.uk ------ Original Message ------ From: "Roger Lapthorn" To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Sent: 04/01/2013 11:32:53 Subject: Re: Re[3]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? A well reasoned email Colin. Although SSB is technically feasible it = should not be encouraged.=20 BTW, I tend to agree that WSPR is oddly positioned in the new band and = personally am in favour of a "light touch" bandplan if only to encourage = folks to congregate in the right watering holes.=20 Very encouraged by results so far with my minimal system. Had a nice = CW QSO with G3XIZ last night on CW who answered my CQ call.=20 73s Roger G3XBM=20 On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:07, "M5FRA - Colin" wrote: I am sorry but I did not express myself very clearly in the last = couple of posts and there were lots of typos. I will attempt to explain = why I am opposed to digital voice/SSB on 630m. =20 The main reason is that although it is technically possible it is = impractical as it will take up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth = which will effectively deny other people the space to operate. =20 The idea that it could be daylight hours only, VOX only etc etc as a = gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreement is wildly optimistic in light of the abuse = of the other gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreements called bandplans.=20 =20 I also feel strongly that we are on the bands as a privilege and not = a right. I know for sure that there is a lot of abuse of license = conditions and have heard ops openly admit to running 1kw+ in order to = work DX or to =E2=80=98level the playing field=E2=80=99 in contests. = That sort of abuse will only do us harm and although some argue that = Ofcom are not interested in such things let me assure you that they are. = =20 The new 630m band is allocated on a secondary basis to aeronautical = mobile users. There are still NDBs within the band and some countries = impose restriction or deny access to 630m altogether because of the = shared use. It will only take somebody to either accidentally or = deliberately QRM to an aeronautical user for us to lose the band or face = more restrictions. I can see the headlines now! =20 Finally, and I will not post here again on this subject, I am not = anti SSB, anti contests, anti much else, but do believe we need a = responsible attitude to how we use the bands. We should not be = constantly pushing for change to suit our own interests or deliberately = flouting the law, in the long term that will only lead to loss of = privilege not more access.=20 =20 And to answer an aggressive direct email which suggested I **** off = and play somewhere else, yes I do operate digital modes and have done = for 40+ years starting with a Creed 7B. I also use SSB, CW, QRP and QRO = and even microwaves. =20 Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA m5fra.org.uk ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CDEA77.0000C270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colin,
 
I'm  concerned  your  in = receipt =20 of  direct  and  abusive  email  over = this =20 subject 
 
CW unfortunately  in this  context , = being =20 once a  professional  occupation and operating  = band  ,=20 will  raise  heated issues   
 
What  ever peoples views and  = opinions  ,=20 such  tactics are  far  beyond the limits  = of =20 acceptability
 
Im sure  other  group  = members  are of=20 a similar  opinion  ?
 
73 -Graham
G0NBD

From: M5FRA - Colin
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:54 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re[5]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band = ?

Roger,
 
thank you for your support. I must admit to being very = disillusioned with=20 the response I have received and do not like the abusive direct emails = from=20 anonymous senders. I decided today to give up ion MF as it should be fun = rather=20 than conflict. I know I should have known better and could have phrased = my=20 emails better but I always had a smile on my face which is hard to = convey=20 electronically.
 
MF is difficult here as my antenna is in the neighbours garden, = they happen=20 to be the in laws! They have also reported Morse code coming over their=20 wireless! They are very good about it all but I do not want to push it = too much.=20 I have an antenna down lead switch box (vacuum relay) and an coax switch = that=20 needs to be installed yet that means a small shed/box in their flower = bed. So,=20 all in all may ditch the experiment and return to HF QRP.
 
 
Colin - M5FRA
 
m5fra.org.uk


------ Original Message ------
From: "Roger = Lapthorn"=20 <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org"=20 <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: 04/01/2013 = 11:32:53
Subject:=20 Re: Re[3]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ?
A well reasoned email Colin. Although SSB is technically feasible = it=20 should not be encouraged. 

BTW, I tend to agree that WSPR is oddly positioned in the new = band and=20 personally am in favour of a "light touch" bandplan if only to = encourage folks=20 to congregate in the right watering holes. 

Very encouraged by results so far with my minimal system. Had a = nice CW=20 QSO with G3XIZ last night on CW who answered my CQ call. 

73s
Roger G3XBM 

On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:07, "M5FRA - Colin" = <m5fra@btinternet.com>=20 wrote:

I am sorry but I did not = express=20 myself very clearly in the last couple of posts and there were lots = of=20 typos. I will attempt to explain why I am opposed to digital = voice/SSB on=20 630m.

 

The main reason is that = although it is=20 technically possible it is impractical as it will take up a = disproportionate=20 amount of bandwidth which will effectively deny other people the = space to=20 operate.

 

The idea that it could be = daylight=20 hours only, VOX only etc etc as a gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreement = is wildly=20 optimistic in light of the abuse of the other gentlemen=E2=80=99s = agreements called=20 bandplans.

 

I also feel strongly that = we are on=20 the bands as a privilege and not a right. I know for sure that there = is a=20 lot of abuse of license conditions and have heard ops openly admit = to=20 running 1kw+ in order to work DX or to =E2=80=98level the playing = field=E2=80=99 in=20 contests. That sort of abuse will only do us harm and although some = argue=20 that Ofcom are not interested in such things let me assure you that = they=20 are.

 

The new 630m band is = allocated on a=20 secondary basis to aeronautical mobile users. There are still NDBs = within=20 the band and some countries impose restriction or deny access to = 630m=20 altogether because of the shared use. It will only take somebody to = either=20 accidentally or deliberately QRM to an aeronautical user for us to = lose the=20 band or face more restrictions. I can see the headlines = now!

 

Finally, and I will not = post here=20 again on this subject, I am not anti SSB, anti contests, anti much = else, but=20 do believe we need a responsible attitude to how we use the bands. = We should=20 not be constantly pushing for change to suit our own interests or=20 deliberately flouting the law, in the long term that will only lead = to loss=20 of privilege not more access.

 

And to answer an=20 aggressive direct email which suggested I **** off and play = somewhere=20 else, yes I do operate digital modes and have done for 40+ years = starting=20 with a Creed 7B. I also use SSB, CW, QRP and QRO and even=20 microwaves.

 

Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA
 
m5fra.org.uk
------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CDEA77.0000C270--