Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:04:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: M0FMT <m0fmt@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <RSGB_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Message-ID: <429121268.3949804.1458576277804.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <429121268.3949804.1458576277804.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting
 (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: O

Stefan 

You are just what they call a user so your opinion doesn't count!!!!! I wrote to one of these "Planning" Individuals of the  Amateur Radio Union who copied me on mail elsewhere and he referred to me a "Just a user". Planning on such a tiny band with only dedicated ops is a power trip for some one. I would hope we are all intelligent enough and reasonable enough to rub along allowing the most effective and creative use to the common good of this tiny band  without the dead hand of bureaucracy stifling any new and good ideas how to maximise its potential.

Band planning only seems to give self appointed individuals the right in the name of what ever national society to rain on your parade. UK VHF bands being a case in point!!!!

73 es GL Pete M0FMT GQRP#15097.in IO91UX 


Sent via my own personal Too-Way (two way) Earth Station to and from the Eutelsat Ka-band satellite  http://www.tooway.co.uk/  at approximately 172 degrees Azimuth in the Clarke belt owing to BTs 19th century cable technology inability to provide a good enough 21st century broadband service. I agree for this message to be passed on to BT Plc at 81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ  via the snoops at GCHQ Cheltenham, thanks for your cooperation it is appreciated.

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 21/3/16, DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)
 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
 Date: Monday, 21 March, 2016, 12:03
 
 
 ...instead of putting efforts in the definition of a band
 plan i
 suggest they focus on working to push the power limit by 10
 dB upwards!
 That would be helpful.
 
 I bet, no one of those who want to decide where which mode
 can be used
 has ever been QRV, nor will ever! 
 
 
 73, Stefan
 
 
 Am 21.03.2016 10:48, schrieb Rik Strobbe:
 
 
   #yiv3281890512 P {
 MARGIN-TOP:0px;MARGIN-BOTTOM:0px;}
 
   #yiv3281890512 P {
 MARGIN-TOP:0px;MARGIN-BOTTOM:0px;}
 
   
   Dear all,
    
   at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,
 16-17 April
 2016) there is a proposal that concerns the 630 m
 band:
    
   It is recommended that beacons will be accepted
 in the plan of usage of the 472 - 479 kHz band (630 m)
 in addition to
 the Recommendation VA14_C4_REC_02:  476 - 477 kHz beacons
 –
 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz.  Maximum power output 1 W
 EIRP.  Beacon proposals should adhere
 to beacon recommendations in the IARU Region 1 HF
 Managers' Handbook,
 and should be approved by the IARU Region
 1 Beacon Coordinator
 (introduced by NRRL)
    
   Besides the fact that I am not a fan of the urge
 to put everything into strict rules
 and I have doubts about the usefulness
 of beacons
 (there are dozens of NDB's in and near the 630 m
 band), I
 do fear that an "official" beacon
 band might attract people or clubs to
 put up a nice "tech project" and leave us with
 the QRM.
   The targeted range (476-477 kHz) is
 de facto used for QRSS, a some
 "wideband" CW beacons can cause a lot of
 harm.
    
   I wonder if NRRL consulted the
 few Norwegian hams that are active on
 630 m and if other in societies the
 band users were asked for advice?
    
   73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T