Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20020107160505.31778276@pb623250.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:05:05
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: LF: Re: New band plan
In-reply-to: <001701c19785$e7483c40$0cec7ad5@dave>
References: <20020107105324.1BE1D3DC8@xprdmailfe.excite.com> <3C39881D.5513DCCD@usa.net>
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>

>As it happens, the suggested bandplan (at
>http://www.g3wkl.freeserve.co.uk/lf/136kHz.html) has now been submitted to
IARU
>region 1 for ratification.

Hello all,

I don't believe that I am wrong when I state that 136kHz is a band where
all kind of things are in fast evolution. New modes are developed and
tested, we learn about trans-atlantic and trans-pacific propagation etc...
New modes create the need for new bandspace, so I doubt that it is a good
thing to have a bandplan 'carved in stone'.
We must have some kind of agreement to allow a peacefull co-existance
between the 'experimenters' and 'QSOers'. But this agreement (or bandplan
if you prefer) should be subject to revision when needed and this will be
most likely more than once every 3 years at IARU R1 conferences. A 136kHz
bandplan that is a burden to experimentation is not a good bandplan.

Fortunately the RSGB proposal to the upcoming IARU Region 1 Conference
starts with :
"No rigid band plan is proposed, but amateurs are asked to work within the
following conventions, giving long-distance communication and
experimentation priority"

I am happy to notice that the RSGB HF committee has wise men who understand
that specifice nature of the 136kHz ham band (only 2.1kHz in an extreme
high noise part of the spectrum) makes it more an experimenter band than a
communicator band.

73, Rik  ON7YD