Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; 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=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,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 u2LDj96X000818 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:45:09 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ai05W-0008W8-Ps for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:41:42 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ai05V-0008Vo-J5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:41:41 +0000 Received: from rgout0505.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.226]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ai05T-0007uN-6M for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:41:40 +0000 X-OWM-Source-IP: 81.129.179.148 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: alan.melia@btinternet.com X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090202.56EFFA12.0044,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=39/50,refid=2.7.2:2016.3.21.115416:17:39.532,ip=81.129.179.148,rules=__HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, MSGID_32HEX_LC, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MSGID_32HEX, __HAS_FROM, __PHISH_FROM2, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __REFERENCES, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, SUPERLONG_LINE, __HTML_AHREF_TAG, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, HTML_NO_HTTP, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_3000_MORE, BODY_SIZE_6000_6999, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_NEG, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, __URI_NS, SXL_IP_DYNAMIC[148.179.129.81.fur], RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __PHISH_FROM, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, REFERENCES, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, NO_URI_HTTPS X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Received: from gnat (81.129.179.148) by rgout05.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.122.06) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 56EAE9F100688A29 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:41:21 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1458567682; bh=ZOgGmvJ0vmJXS6x0ST/2TqJfr9pjJ0ZP6Vr5L1TxeeM=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:X-Mailer; b=qIVgZnBHu+ARgmawPfAr/0dPodei0H2B29gwox5GfoFf7d/eiTMHskGdYpquN1i2uhJD0sWZcUEKxUMZRwqpGlFC6NEc8HVlHOZejtWTPiZNPCOYYCSkVNLdcayr7n4BRV3mVm8dauQ9JwZacx65AJiCfDXKr5UWIRbUqvb0lak= Message-ID: From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E1924@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <56EFE31E.7040603@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:40:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Scan-Signature: 9bd342c7d74bc0c7d15d59c1164ca995 Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01D18377.4D2767B0" 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: 7447 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01D18377.4D2767B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 -----=20 From: DK7FC=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 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!=20 73, Stefan Am 21.03.2016 10:48, schrieb Rik Strobbe:=20 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 =96 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01D18377.4D2767B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Indeed Stefan, but some of us with a = line to=20 influence, do listen to your comments and ensure they reach the "right=20 places"  :-))
 
Alan G3NYK
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 DK7FC=20
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 = 12:03=20 PM
Subject: Re: LF: bandplan = proposal at the=20 next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)

...instead of putting efforts in the definition of a = band plan=20 i suggest they focus on working to push the power limit by 10 dB = upwards! That=20 would be helpful.
I bet, no one of those who want to decide where = which=20 mode can be used has ever been QRV, nor will ever!

73,=20 Stefan

Am 21.03.2016 10:48, schrieb Rik Strobbe:=20

Dear all,

 

at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna, = 16-17=20 April 2016) there is a proposal that concerns the 630 = m=20 band:

 

It is recommen= ded that beacons will be accepted=20 in the plan of usage of the 472 - 479 kHz band (630 m) = in addition=20 to the Recommendation VA14_C4_REC_02:  476 - 477 = kHz beacons=20 =96 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz.  Maximum power output 1 W=20 EIRP.  Beacon proposals should adhere=20 to beacon recommendations in the IARU Region = 1 HF=20 Managers' Handbook, and should be approved by=20 the IARU Region=20 1 Beacon Coordinator = (introduced by=20 NRRL)

 

Besides the fact that I am not a fan of=20 the urge to = put everything into strict rules and I=20 have doubts about the usefulness=20 of beacons (there are dozens=20 of NDB's in and near the 630 m band), I=20 do fear that an "official" beacon=20 band might attract people or clubs to put up = a nice=20 "tech project" and leave us with the QRM.

The targeted range (476-477 kHz) is = de facto used for=20 QRSS, a some = "wideband" CW beacons can cause a lot=20 of harm.

 

I wonder if NRRL consulted the=20 few Norwegian hams that are active on 630 m = and if other in societies the=20 band users were asked for advice?

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

 

------=_NextPart_000_0070_01D18377.4D2767B0--