Message-ID: <380C385E.802C0971@nephro.uni-kiel.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 11:22:38 +0200
From: "P. W. Schnoor" <pwsch@nephro.uni-kiel.de>
Organization: Clinic of Nephrology, University of Kiel
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Bandplan
References: <QHcGDBA7mAD4MwSX@telemetry.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Steve Rawlings wrote:
 
> Without any operating guidelines, 136 kHz would soon become a very
> chaotic and frustrating band to operate.  

There's nothing what a "bandplan" could do against this. I do
not fear chaos and frustration confrontated by strong LORAN-C,
many local signal and noise sources, restricted to 20 Watts and
2.1 kHz of bandwidth. What I fear is that I could not make a
sked with a Rotex owner for VSCW or non-telegraphic mode on
136.5 (of course as short as possible and not at weekends...). 

> I believe that the adoption of
> a workable set of guidelines (a 'bandplan') is essential to minimising
> the risk of interference to other operators.

The main risk of interference is not the absence of a bandplan
of course. How should such restrictions help (i.e.) against
strong transmissions in combination with insufficient reception?

> In addition, future band-planning may need to give due consideration to
> the time of day; and day of the week - thus recognising the current
> practice of avoiding beacon transmissions on Saturdays and Sundays when
> band occupancy is high, and beaconing is inappropriate.
> 
> 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!

54°16'N / 10°04'E, JO54ag
73 es gl de Peter, DF3LP