Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15521 invoked from network); 20 Oct 1999 00:13:36 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO magnet.force9.net) (195.166.128.26) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 20 Oct 1999 00:13:36 +0100 Received: (qmail 17546 invoked from network); 19 Oct 1999 23:21:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnet.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 19 Oct 1999 23:21:00 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11diHz-0003WR-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:03:31 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.41]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11diHy-0003WJ-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:03:30 +0100 Received: from G0MRF@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id lKZE0edusm (4447) for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:02:29 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 From: G0MRF@aol.com Message-ID: <0.3c83cfce.253e5285@aol.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:02:29 EDT Subject: Re: LF: Bandplan To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 137 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: In a message dated 10/19/99 10:34:50 GMT Daylight Time, pwsch@nephro.uni-kiel.de writes: << > Of course, the current draft bandplan(s) still need further input and > discussion. I hope not... I'm strictly against any further 'bandplaning'. It will generate more conflicts than fun! >> I think that when you have 5 stations within 30km all running very high power, as I do, you may appreciate the need for a voluntary bandplan. Vy 73 David