Message-ID: <4AFA10E4.6080703@telus.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:18:28 -0800
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <001101ca621e$dcdc3380$96949a80$@princeton.edu>
In-Reply-To: <001101ca621e$dcdc3380$96949a80$@princeton.edu>
Subject: Re: LF: 500 kHz WSPR de VE1JF or who the heck is this guy?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Jim

As a member of RAC, I wonder where you get the authorization for making=20
a statement such as this:
'Regulatory Affairs wing of RAC, who are Industry Canada=92s gatekeepers'?=
??

RAC has no regulatory power nor formal stating with IC. They wish they=20
did, but they do not and as a member my vote is they should never have.

I would also like to make it clear that the Canadian Developmental=20
Service experiments are strictly that 'Developmental Service' and have=20
no legal ability to communicate with those in the amateur service. It=20
concerns me to see reports of undisciplined experimental operators=20
attempting or completely QSOs with stations in the amateur service in=20
EU. This was the main reason I opted out of the 600m experiment in the=20
first place.

Another reason I withdrew my application for experimentation on 600m was=
=20
this very attitude from RAC and its complete lack of willingness to=20
advocate for real amateur radio experiments. Instead they presented us=20
with watered down commercial developmental licenses advocated by those=20
with zero prior interest in LF and zero operating experience on LF. With=
=20
no ability to explore REAL communication with other amateurs world wide=20
and a complete lack of respect for and knowledge about the existing LF=20
experimenters group that exists in Canada I withdrew in disgust of the=20
entire situation as the egos in Ottawa and elsewhere have taken over...

If the chair or the band planning committee would have had any real=20
interest in LF then were where they years ago when REAL amateur LF=20
experiments where being conducted when we pleaded for others to get=20
involved?

Had you had a real interest you would have your answers already as the=20
systems have been developed and will simply sit idle at this station=20
until there is REAL amateur radio on 600m.

I certainly hope you don't entertain to start planning the future 2200m=20
band without consulting with the long term users here in Canada.

73 Scott
VE7TIL CN89dk








Jim and Hannelore Fisher wrote:
>
> Congratulations on #1000, G3XIZ!
>
> I chair the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) LF/MF/HF Band Planning=20
> Committee, and several of us are interested in participating in the=20
> recently-authorized experiments on 500 kHz. We are receiving active=20
> support on this effort from the Regulatory Affairs wing of RAC, who=20
> are Industry Canada=92s gatekeepers. This period is preliminary to the=
=20
> coming world meeting where this will be discussed. We hope to get=20
> several stations transmitting 25% of the time and a lot more across=20
> Canada receiving, so it should add to WSPR=92s activity and spotting at=
=20
> this frequency.
>
> I=92m not sure what you were saying about hand-sent CW vs. WSPR; I also=
=20
> love CW but am amazed what WSPR can offer. Other authorized Canadian=20
> participants in this program are already using CW, and most of my=20
> 100,000+ QSOs over 53+ years have been CW, but we are expecting our=20
> little group to propose two frequencies (we must be specific) and use=20
> 503.9 WSPR beacon mode, break in using the WSJT WSPR mode, and QSY to=20
> our =93working frequency=94, where we can use any mode within the 1 kHz=
=20
> permissible bandwidth. Contenders for working frequency QSOs might=20
> vary from some of the JT modes to OLIVIA to CW depending on what=20
> signal levels we are experiencing with feasible antennas and our power=
=20
> limitations. The purpose of all this will be able to understand=20
> whether 600M can offer utility for ham radio-scale stations for=20
> emergency, and how its usability varies with conditions including aurora=
.
>
> Last night, using my 160M 1/2w sloper aimed at the Pacific Rim, I=20
> spotted SM6BHZ over 40 times on 502.4+.
>
> We are looking for info on successful approaches to generating WSPR=20
> and other modes on 500 kHz. I=92m presently thinking of a transverter=20
> with my transceiver=92s transverter output, but I=92m open and others in=
=20
> our group may want to try other approaches.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim, VE1JF
>