Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19991018091511.2dc75ec0@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:15:11
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: RTTY test...
In-reply-to: <199910151134_MC2-8925-6D83@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

At 11:34 15/10/99 -0400, DK8KW wrote:
>this frequency is in perfect agreement with the gentlemen's agreement
>bandplan worked out at the LF Forum during the RSGB HF (and LF) Convention
>in Old Windsor last week, documented by John, G3WKL. 
>
>Basically, the forum came up with the following:
>
>135.700 - 136.000       local tests and temporary beacon transmissions
>136.000 - 137.100       CW
>137.100 - 137.600       non-CW modes (such as PSK31, RTTY, etc.)
>137.600 - 137.800       Slow-CW

I wasn't aware that in agreement with the 'bandplan' there should be not CW
above 137100. And taking into account the many CW signals heard up to
137500 many others are in the same situation.

One practical remark : due to commercial QRM the band is useless for weaks
signal reception below 136500 (at least here in Belgium). This would mean
that in practice there is only 600Hz bandwidth for CW while we reserve
500Hz for almost non-existing modes. I agree that new modes must be
encouraged and that we sould have a segment for it, but 500Hz seems just
too much to me. Maybe a 200Hz segment would be enough (137400 - 137600).

73, Rik  ON7YD