Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A072F380000A2; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Tvx7c-000866-MV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:35:40 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Tvx7c-00085s-5y for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:35:40 +0000 Received: from smtpout1.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.29] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tvx7Z-0005vy-VX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:35:39 +0000 Received: from AGB ([2.26.8.52]) by mwinf5d01 with ME id p9bG1k00Y17MR2y039bGkC; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:35:17 +0100 Message-ID: <54FFA741DF164411BBF43F3479DFB2B3@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <4B52EADB3E8E4CC594F35CF05BD07140@IBM7FFA209F07C> <1358446716.91862.YahooMailNeo@web132501.mail.ird.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1358446716.91862.YahooMailNeo@web132501.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:35:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: http://www.rsgb.org/committees/spectrumforum/docs/rsgb_band_plan_2013.xls#'600M'!A1 This seems to be wishful thinking , and the reason for 500 Hz is ? As in a few months it will no more than a local chat band , so why the panic over modes and b/w any way ? [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.29 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: ad9c0e3658f56f4dbb01cd425a6a8031 Subject: Re: LF: RadCom February 2013 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0185_01CDF4FA.8A6C09F0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d7b8c50f86ee1710c X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0185_01CDF4FA.8A6C09F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.rsgb.org/committees/spectrumforum/docs/rsgb_band_plan_2013.xls= #'600M'!A1 This seems to be wishful thinking , and the reason for 500 Hz is = ? =20 As in a few months it will no more than a local chat band , so = why the panic over modes and b/w any way ? G.. From: Chris Osborn=20 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:18 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: RadCom February 2013 I agree. Also I found the RadCom band plan quite confusing. I don't recall being confused with previously published plans so perhaps = I'm getting old ! I have a regular sked on top band A.M. on 1985 kHz According to the band plan we need to operate between 1840 and 1843 kHz = ("All Modes" - AM is acceptable in the 'All Modes' segments . . .) and have a bandwidth of 2.7 kHz - a good trick if you can do it with AM = - fortunately I have a deep voice! 73 Chris G3XIZ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- From: Chris To: RSGB LF Group =20 Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2013, 17:00 Subject: LF: RadCom February 2013 I was surprised to see on page 9 of the latest RSGB RadCom under '2013 = Band Plans', a statement re the 472 - 479kHz band:- "Activity is limited = to modes with 500Hz bandwidth or less". The implication here is that = this is what Ofcom has specified, especially as in the sentence before = it refers to the Notice of Variation. As such, the statement is quite = misleading and untrue. Who at the RSGB has decided on this new rule? Why does the RSGB feel the = need to impose such a rule? It looks like they are dictating to the = membership, rather than representing them. Frankly a bit of a cheek. I note later in 'LF' by Dave, G3YXM, on page 55, the correct statement = is made, referring to the only change in the licence conditions being = the power limitation. Come back Pete (FMT)! All is forgiven!! Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT. ------=_NextPart_000_0185_01CDF4FA.8A6C09F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://www.rsgb.org/committees/spectrumforum/docs/rsg= b_band_plan_2013.xls#'600M'!A1
 
This seems to  be  wishful thinking  , and the  = reason=20 for  500 Hz  is  ?  
As in a  few  months it will  no more than a =20 local  chat  band , so  why the  panic
over  modes  and b/w any way ?
 
G..

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: LF: RadCom February 2013

I=20 agree.

Also I found the RadCom band plan quite confusing.
I = don't=20 recall being confused with previously published plans so perhaps I'm = getting old=20 !

I have a regular sked on top band A.M. on 1985 kHz
According = to the=20 band plan we need to operate between 1840 and 1843 kHz ("All Modes" - AM = is=20 acceptable in the 'All Modes' segments . . .)
and have a bandwidth of = 2.7 kHz=20 - a good trick if you can do it with AM - fortunately I have a deep=20 voice!

73
Chris G3XIZ




From: Chris=20 <c.ashby435@btinternet.com>
To: RSGB LF Group=20 <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2013,=20 17:00
Subject: LF: = RadCom=20 February 2013

I was surprised to see on page 9 = of the latest=20 RSGB RadCom under '2013 Band Plans', a statement re the 472 - = 479kHz band:-=20 "Activity is limited to modes with 500Hz bandwidth or less". The = implication=20 here is that this is what Ofcom has specified, especially as in the = sentence=20 before it refers to the Notice of Variation. As such, the statement is = quite=20 misleading and untrue.
Who at the RSGB has decided on this new = rule? Why=20 does the RSGB feel the need to impose such a rule? It looks like they = are=20 dictating to the membership, rather than representing them. Frankly a = bit of a=20 cheek.
I note later in 'LF' by Dave, G3YXM, on = page 55,=20 the correct statement is made, referring to the only change in = the=20 licence conditions being the power limitation.
Come back Pete (FMT)! All is=20 forgiven!!
Vy 73,
Chris,=20 G4AYT.


------=_NextPart_000_0185_01CDF4FA.8A6C09F0--