Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:51:53 -0230 (NDT)
From: jcraig@mun.ca
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <4DA89CA0.5070205@telus.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104152144130.6761@plato.ucs.mun.ca>
References: <1404511163.2435661.1302852318538.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb049>
 <669371.26474.qm@web28101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104151618030.30225@plato.ucs.mun.ca>
 <4DA89CA0.5070205@telus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: 17.2 kHz for Amateur Radio?
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1719232024-218406632-1302913313=:6761"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


---1719232024-218406632-1302913313=:6761
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Scott,

Have you been authorised to transmit below 9 kHz?  If so, our
regional Industry Cananda office will be saved a great deal of
leg work in approving the proposal I sent last summer.

Thanks
Joe

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Scott Tilley wrote:

> Hi Joe
>
> Maybe IC doesn't trust you to behave, you have a reputation you know ;-)
>
> 73 Scott
> VE7TIL
>
> On 4/15/2011 11:51 AM, jcraig@mun.ca wrote:
>> Hi Pete, Group.
>>=20
>> I have tried for a year without luck to get authorisation to transmit=
 below=20
>> 9 kHz. Even though this portion of the spectrum is not allocated,
>> it is still illegal to transmit there from what information is availabl=
e.
>>=20
>> 73
>> Joe VO1NA
>>=20
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, M0FMT wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hi Horst
>>=20
>> It is a sad fact but true.
>>=20
>> To some extent the UK=EF=BF=BDauthority seems to be slightly more enlig=
hten than=20
>> some in EU.
>> =EF=BF=BD73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ________________________________
>> From: Horst St=EF=BF=BDcker <horst.stoecker@web.de>
>> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>> Sent: Fri, 15 April, 2011 8:25:18
>> Subject: Re: LF: 17.2 kHz for Amateur Radio?
>>=20
>> I do not know the situation in Switzerland, but I bet it is similar as=
 in=20
>> Germany.
>> You must not choose any frequency that seems not to be in use. Even bel=
ow=20
>> 9kHz the situation was not quite clear for many years.
>> To transmit on 17,2 kHz you would have to apply for a special licence=
 - as=20
>> for 500kHz e.g. But I am in doubt if you would get it. All other ways=
 would=20
>> be illegal.
>> BTW transmitting below 9kHz or 500kHz is NOT HAM Radio in germany - no=
 Ham=20
>> Radio frequencies. Officially you must not work crossband - 500kHz /=20
>> 3650kHz for example. Its a strange world. Even the DARC will see things=
=20
>> this way. QSOs and QSLs are not valid for any contest or award. They pr=
efer=20
>> a definition by laws instead of physics ;-))
>> But is there any wonder? 90% of HAM Radio is rag chewing on 80m SSB.=20
>> Experimenters are a minority.
>> How many hams have a computer with soundcard and how many hams are watc=
hing=20
>> for SAQ? About 250 have confirmed the last transmissions. Unfortunately=
=20
>> there is very few interest beside the mainstream.
>> Horst DO1KHS/DI2AN=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Schon geh=EF=BF=BDrt? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die=
=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD
>> Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
>
>

---1719232024-218406632-1302913313=:6761--