Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:03:01 +0200
From: Steinar Aanesland <saanes@broadpark.no>
In-reply-to:
 <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FBCBDA1@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk,
 "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Message-id: <518B7455.8000609@broadpark.no>
MIME-version: 1.0
References:
 <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FBCBDA1@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328
 Thunderbird/17.0.5
Subject: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


This has not been discussed in the Norwegian ham community, and becau=
se
of LA4LN's solo act, I am not a member of NRRL any more.

LA5VNA Steinar
loc:JO59jq


Den 09.05.2013 10:36, skrev Rik Strobbe:
> Dear all,
>=20
>=20
>=20
> those active on 630m might be interested in the outcome of the disc=
ussion of paper C4_06 (Bandplan for the 630 m band proposed by NRRL) =
at the Committee C4 (HF Matters) Interim Meeting (20-21 April 2013, V=
ienna):
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 4.5 Paper C4_06 was presented by LA4LN
> RSGB stated that they support the principle of a band plan, but tha=
t it is too early to have a formal plan until the usage is better kno=
wn.
> DARC stated that the usage of the band at the moment doesn=92t real=
ly require a band plan.
> DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage" (see Annex 1).
> ZRS asked if the CW DX frequency could be moved a little higher up =
the band.
> DARC noted that there are still 4 NDBs in the band. They also asked=
 if the QRSS CW segment could be moved out of the CW part of the band=
 as it is decoded as a digimode. DARC also said there is currently no=
 need for a coordinated beacon segment as we can use the existing NDB=
s.
> OeVSV said we should observe the band usage for a while before deci=
ding on a fixed band plan and suggested that centres of activity coul=
d be used also.
> UBA stated it is too early to propose a band plan.
> It was agreed to show current plan as proposed usage and to review =
at the next general conference.
> CRC stated that we should not show a plan as the current users woul=
d not appreciate being told how to use the band.
> The meeting agreed to change the wording to a =91proposed usage=
=92 plan and that frequencies should be referred to as centre of acti=
vities.
> DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage".
>=20
>=20
>=20
> [cid:2bd9b952-2278-4148-b306-9c41271fd880]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
>=20