Message-ID: <50656760.3070401@freenet.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:01:20 +0200
From: wolf_dl4yhf <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <20961.6c91afbf.3d962a97@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <20961.6c91afbf.3d962a97@aol.com>
Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band Plan
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hello Klaus and all,

I appreciate the effort to co-ordinate the activities on MF 
(frequency-wise), but like Alan and Markus I'm not very comfortable with 
the a "band plan" at this very early stage.

You wrote:

1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3kHz).
2. Within that, a region for beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) followed 
by a region for Slow CW (472,150kHz to 472,300kHz).

Heavens no. Beacons within the IF filter bandwidth of many analog 
receivers around 472.5 kHz, with the high possibility to overload the 
frontend - please don't. Even IQ2MI can be annoying sometimes when 
stations call around 501 kHz.
Also consider that, at the moment, the "lower end" of the band is the 
most valuable part of it.
Just consider what happens if your next door neighbour decides to run a 
beacon there.
IMHO, beacons there are evil, and we already have more than enough of 
them on MF.
*If* somebody really thinks he needs to put up a long-running beacon, 
suggest to get as close to the "upper end" as possible.

Wait until other countries get on, and don't carve anything in stone 
unless an authority really forces us to do so.

Well, this is a very personal opinion. I appreciate your coordination 
work, but I am not comfortable with authoritive bandplans on MF. Let's 
coordinate things here, and on "the other" group as necessary. We need a 
lot of flexibility on MF.

Cheers,
   Wolf .