Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id B7E92380000AD; Thu, 9 May 2013 18:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UaZ5i-0002gS-4F for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 May 2013 23:13:34 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UaZ5h-0002gJ-8d for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 May 2013 23:13:33 +0100 Received: from smtpout3.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.59] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UaZ5e-0008CI-PM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 May 2013 23:13:32 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.27.152.81]) by mwinf5d31 with ME id ZyD61l00C1ldcMN03yD6dR; Fri, 10 May 2013 00:13:09 +0200 Message-ID: <788A6D5B36044FD4ABCB6B10FA3D3887@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FBCBDA1@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> <518B7455.8000609@broadpark.no> <1368096290.60555.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1368096290.60555.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 23:13:06 +0100 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: I like this bit and the one about qrss being a data mode }) ''DARC also said there is currently no need for a coordinated beacon segment as we can use the existing NDBs.'' And exactly how do 'we decode these existing beacons at levels under the noise and produce meaningful s/n levels at dx range ? and intercept the occasional flash dx , [...] 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 [80.12.242.59 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 14522a7d8bfffcae5e92e35059f18ae1 Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01CE4D0A.C3746540" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,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: 3039ac1d4091518c1fed4c47 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_0058_01CE4D0A.C3746540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I like this bit and the one about qrss being a data mode }) ''DARC also said there is currently no need for a coordinated beacon = segment as we can use the existing NDBs.'' =20 And exactly how do 'we decode these existing beacons at levels = under the noise and produce meaningful s/n levels at dx range ? and = intercept the occasional flash dx ,=20 incidentally ,has anyone noticed beacons are becoming bandwidth = hungry , with more spectrum being allocated on the vhf bands ? G.. From: M0FMT=20 Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:44 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band Hi all It has been said before that to salami slice such a small allocation as = the MF/LF bands is nonsenses. In any case how many of the "Slicers" use these frequencies? As usual it = is those who feel they have the right, will thus be giving the band = "Policemen" a mission. Why is it not possible to have these bands organised by the actual users = on a consensual basis rather than have it cast in "stone"? Alterations in QRG usage would then be organic and by popular demand and = meet the needs of developing modes and operating practise. It will be = messy but I think it's called Democracy which seems to be slipping = through the fingers of the regular MF/LF users. After all we do have a = forum to air these issues.. 73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX From: Steinar Aanesland To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk; "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" = =20 Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 11:03 Subject: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band This has not been discussed in the Norwegian ham community, and = because 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 = discussion 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, = Vienna): >=20 >=20 >=20 > 4.5 Paper C4_06 was presented by LA4LN > RSGB stated that they support the principle of a band plan, but that = it is too early to have a formal plan until the usage is better known. > DARC stated that the usage of the band at the moment doesn=E2=80=99t = really 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 NDBs. > OeVSV said we should observe the band usage for a while before = deciding on a fixed band plan and suggested that centres of activity = could 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 would = not appreciate being told how to use the band. > The meeting agreed to change the wording to a =E2=80=98proposed = usage=E2=80=99 plan and that frequencies should be referred to as centre = of activities. > DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage". >=20 >=20 >=20 > [cid:2bd9b952-2278-4148-b306-9c41271fd880] >=20 >=20 >=20 > 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01CE4D0A.C3746540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I like this bit and the  one about qrss  being a  = data =20 mode })
 
''DARC also said there is currently no need for a coordinated = beacon=20 segment as we can use the existing NDBs.'' 
 
And exactly how  do  'we decode  these = existing =20 beacons at levels  under the  noise and  produce=20 meaningful  s/n levels at  dx  range ? and = intercept =20 the  occasional flash  dx  ,
 
incidentally ,has anyone  noticed  beacons  are=20 becoming  bandwidth hungry , with  more  spectrum  = being=20 allocated  on the  vhf  bands ?
G..
 
From: M0FMT
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:44 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the = MF=20 band

Hi all
 
It has been said before that to salami slice such a small = allocation=20 as the MF/LF bands is = nonsenses.
 
In any case how many of the "Slicers" use these frequencies? As usual it is those = who feel=20 they have the right, will thus be giving the band "Policemen" a=20 mission.
 
Why is it not possible to have these bands organised by the = actual=20 users on a consensual basis = rather than=20 have it cast in "stone"?
 
Alterations in QRG usage=20 would then be organic and by = popular=20 demand and meet the needs of developing modes and operating practise. It will be messy but I = think it's=20 called Democracy which seems = to be=20 slipping through the fingers of the regular MF/LF users. After = all we do=20 have a forum to air these=20 issues..
 73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX
From: = Steinar=20 Aanesland <saanes@broadpark.no>
To: = rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk;=20 "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>=20
Sent: Thursday, 9 = May 2013,=20 11:03
Subject: LF: = Re:=20 [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band

This has not been discussed in the = Norwegian=20 ham community, and because
of LA4LN's solo act, I am not a member = of NRRL=20 any more.

LA5VNA Steinar
loc:JO59jq


Den = 09.05.2013 10:36,=20 skrev Rik Strobbe:
> Dear all,
>
>
> =
> those=20 active on 630m might be interested in the outcome of the discussion of = paper=20 C4_06 (Bandplan for the 630 m band proposed by NRRL) at the Committee = C4 (HF=20 Matters) Interim Meeting (20-21 April 2013, Vienna):
>
> =
>=20
> 4.5 Paper C4_06 was presented by LA4LN
> RSGB stated = that they=20 support the principle of a band plan, but that it is too early to have = a=20 formal plan until the usage is better known.
> DARC stated that = the=20 usage of the band at the moment doesn=E2=80=99t really require a band = plan.
>=20 DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage" (see Annex 1).
> ZRS = asked if=20 the CW DX frequency could be moved a little higher up the = band.
> DARC=20 noted that there are still 4 NDBs in the band. They also asked if the = QRSS CW=20 segment could be moved out of the CW part of the band as it is decoded = as a=20 digimode. DARC also said there is currently no need for a coordinated = beacon=20 segment as we can use the existing NDBs.
> OeVSV said we should = observe=20 the band usage for a while before deciding on a fixed band plan and = suggested=20 that centres of activity could be used also.
> UBA stated it is = too=20 early to propose a band plan.
> It was agreed to show current = plan as=20 proposed usage and to review at the next general conference.
> = CRC=20 stated that we should not show a plan as the current users would not=20 appreciate being told how to use the band.
> The meeting agreed = to=20 change the wording to a =E2=80=98proposed usage=E2=80=99 plan and that = frequencies should be=20 referred to as centre of activities.
> DARC introduced a plan = "proposed=20 usage".
>
>
>
>=20 [cid:2bd9b952-2278-4148-b306-9c41271fd880]
>
>
> =
>=20 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
>=20




------=_NextPart_000_0058_01CE4D0A.C3746540--