From: "Paul Keinanen" <keinanen@sci.fi>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Slow CW vs. BPSK etc.
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:58:46 +0300
Message-ID: <i3jcjsskm8s49g754q6qerhaaabrr761bg@4ax.com>
References: <003e01bfcba6$70b54200$ac1886d4@kevin>
In-reply-to: <003e01bfcba6$70b54200$ac1886d4@kevin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:48:59 +0100, "Kevin Ravenhill"
<kevin.ravenhill@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

>There's a lot of discussion going on at the moment on the US "LowFER"
>mailing list about the relative merits of slow CW versus BPSK

I think it is appropriate time to remind that some countries have
emission mode limitations on LF (as far as I know A1A is the only mode
allowed in Norway). It should be a good idea for amateurs in these
countries to contact their national amateur radio society and ask them
to discuss lifting the mode limitation with their telecom authorities.

When designing a new mode/protocol the station identification must be
handled in some way, hopefully compatible with ID requirements in most
countries.

Paul OH3LWR