Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1290; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id u2LLNLJW001782 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:23:21 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ai7B8-0001IN-6l for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:15:58 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ai7B7-0001IE-Mx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:15:57 +0000 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ai7B5-0000ra-ST for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:15:56 +0000 Received: from dovecot03.posteo.de (dovecot03.posteo.de [172.16.0.13]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F92520D78 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:15:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dovecot03.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3qTTBz0kw2z5vN0 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:15:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <56F0648A.1090200@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:15:54 +0100 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E1924@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <56EFE31E.7040603@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: X-Scan-Signature: 860e51ceecdf98b32e8eba101d9d472d Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060103060109050702030808" 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.11 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7454 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060103060109050702030808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alan, how do i have to understand that? It can be understood in a positive or negative wise. Am 21.03.2016 14:40, schrieb Alan Melia: > Indeed Stefan, but some of us with a line to influence, do listen to > your comments and ensure they reach the "right places" :-)) > Alan G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* DK7FC > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2016 12:03 PM > *Subject:* Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I > Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016) > > ...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: >> >> 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 >> --------------060103060109050702030808 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alan, how do i have to understand that? It can be understood in a positive or negative wise.

Am 21.03.2016 14:40, schrieb Alan Melia:
Indeed Stefan, but some of us with a line to influence, do listen to your comments and ensure they reach the "right places"  :-))
 
Alan G3NYK
----- Original Message -----
From: DK7FC
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)

...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:

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

 

--------------060103060109050702030808--