Message-ID: <200912101311320337.00F58B02@smtp2.numeo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <150809.55455.qm@web28107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <150809.55455.qm@web28107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:11:32 +0100
From: "John RABSON" <john.rabson@numeo.fr>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Geneva and WRC-12 Agenda Items
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


I believe (though I can't find the reference) that someone in France made=
 an informal enquiry - not via REF) about the equivalent of an NoV for 500=
.  The reply translated as "that part of the spectrum is not allocation to=
 the amateur service".

F5VLF

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 10/12/2009 at 03:27 M0FMT wrote:

>FYI=A0 ??=20
>"There is opposition to this proposal, primarily from the maritime servic=
e
>via the International Maritime Organisation and this has led to France
>presenting a paper under agenda item 1.10 that suggests a use for the ban=
d
>495-505 kHz using datamodes.=A0=A0This was in response to papers from Can=
ada
>and the UK that proposed a secondary amateur band between 493 and 510(515=
)
>kHz.=A0=A0There appears to be no commercial or technical reasoning behind=
 this
>paper and it is suspected to be based on emotive grounds
>only.=A0=A0Nevertheless agenda item 1.23 still requires a lot more suppor=
t if
>it is going to be successful."=20
>73 petefmt