MIME-version: 1.0
References: <56F10EEF.4040208@broadpark.no>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
From: Steinar Aanesland <saanes@broadpark.no>
Message-id: <56F10F6F.60201@broadpark.no>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:25:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
In-reply-to: <56F10EEF.4040208@broadpark.no>
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Subject: LF: Fwd: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I
 Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

OK, I admit that I was wrong. They have been in contact with ONE person

LA5VNA S


On 21-Mar-16 23:52, Geir Laastad la6lu@online.no [rsgb_lf_group] wrote:
 >
 > Well, the simple answer is yes. I was indeed asked. So just to claim 
that nobody was asked just because LA5VNA was not asked, is a premature 
and wrong conclusion. Also, while at it. I for one, in general wouldn't 
expect any organisation asking non-members which themselves have freely 
distanced themselves away from the (any) organisation.
 > RegardsGeir, LA6LU, LA2BCN
 >
 >
 > Sent from Samsung Note Pro tablet.
 >
 > -------- Original message --------
 > From: "Steinar Aanesland saanes@broadpark.no [rsgb_lf_group]" 
<rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk>
 > Date: 21/03/2016  17:30  (GMT+01:00)
 > To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk, rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
 > Subject: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon 
I Interim
 >    Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)
 >
 > " 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? "
 >
 > The simplest answer is no, and this is one of the reasons that I am not
 > a member of NRRL anymore.
 >
 > LA5VNA S
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > On 21-Mar-16 10:48, Rik Strobbe rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be
 > [rsgb_lf_group] wrote:
 >> 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
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------------
 >
 > ------------------------------------
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------------
 >
 > Yahoo Groups Links
 >
 >
 >