From: "John W Gould" <g3wkl@btinternet.com>
To: "Rsgb_Lf_Group@Blacksheep.Org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: 136kHz Guideline rather than Bandplan
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:11:30 -0000
Message-ID: <LOBBIDNOENMNHIBGDCKBCEDBCLAA.g3wkl@btinternet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

I write this e-mail to help clarify the position and reduce the tension
caused by a RSGB draft guideline for 136kHz that has wrongly been termed a
"bandplan" by some users of this list.

Back in 1999 when the RSGB, DARC and other national societies discussed the
need for a Bandplan for 136kHz under IARU Region 1 auspices, a clear
resolution was made that a bandplan would be inappropriate for the new band.
Many of the reasons expressed in the recent e-mails to this list were given,
e.g. the need to promote experimentation and flexible usage of the narrow
band given to amateur usage.  IARU also agreed that permanent beacons would
not be promoted as in-band and transmissions near to the amateur allocation
could adequately server as propagation indicators.  Recognising that some
guidance would be helpful to users, particularly amateurs new to the band, a
Code of Practice was carried with 30 votes FOR, 6 votes AGAINST and 5
abstentions.  The code,  REC/99/LH/C4.6 is as follows:

a) No sub-division of the band 135.7137.8 kHz are made for local or DX
contacts or specific modes.

b) Taking the above into consideration, and that there are LORAN C spurii
present, that the 6.6 Hz segment centred on 136.45485 kHz is used for narrow
band transmissions.  Narrow band transmissions are also preferred above
137.6 kHz.

c) Stations should make use of a stable VFO or synthesiser to encourage the
acceptance of common frequency working.

d) Transmitter testing should be carried out below 136 kHz.

e) Weekend mornings should be avoided for long duration transmitter testing.

f) Where possible, a telephone number should be incorporated in beacon
messages.

Since 1999, the evolving nature of the experiments and successes on 136kHz
suggest that the guideline is appropriate for revision.  It is in this
spirit that some of the users of 136kHz band discussed proposals that I put
forward last October at the LF Forum of the RSGB HF/IOTA Convention.  The
Forum has become one of the gathering points for amateurs interested in the
band, hence it was appropriate to test the draft.  Taking account of the
majority views expressed at the Forum, the draft was amended and passed to
RSGB Board for submission to the IARU.  The detail of the proposal is
available on the RSGB HF Committee's web site at

http://www.g3wkl.freeserve.co.uk/lf/136kHz.html

When the IARU Region 1 discuss the RSGB proposals there will be ample
opportunity for differing views from other national societies and a majority
vote within Region 1 will be taken.  I am sure that the mood of the
discussion will be to avoid the regulation that many of us, including
myself, would consider inappropriate for the band. We certainly don't want
to damage the innovative technology and communication experiments that as
far as amateur radio is concerned are a differentiating feature of the band.

In the case of 136kHz the guideline / code of practice is merely a mechanism
for helping to optimise the use of the small band, amongst regular, new and
occasional users and experimenters when there are no specific prevailing
factors that define the operating frequency and practice.

As always I e-mail with some reluctance as I don't wish to encourage
inflamatory remarks, to me an unfortunate aspect of Internet usage

73  John, G3WKL
RSGB HF Committee
g3wkl@btinternet.com