Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9409 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2002 14:18:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 7 Jan 2002 14:18:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 16449 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2002 14:18:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 7 Jan 2002 14:18:57 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16NaYs-0003u2-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:15:38 +0000 Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.111]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16NaYr-0003tx-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:15:38 +0000 Received: from host213-122-236-12.btinternet.com ([213.122.236.12] helo=dave) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16NaY6-0007bv-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:14:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c19785$e7483c40$0cec7ad5@dave> From: "Dave Sergeant" To: "rsgb_lf_group" References: <20020107105324.1BE1D3DC8@xprdmailfe.excite.com> <3C39881D.5513DCCD@usa.net> Subject: LF: Re: Re: New band plan (was: GPS Coherant PSK Transmission) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:15:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: >From Dave G3YMC I2PHD wrote: >Just to stir a bit the water, what about the following : >135.7 - 136.0 Long distance (TA or TP), weak-signal modes (QRSS, DFCW,etc.), no CW allowed >136.0 - 137.0 All digital modes + QRSS + DFCW , both for QSOs and experimentations, no CW >137.0 - 137.8 CW only Oh dear, dear, dear. As it happens, the suggested bandplan (at http://www.g3wkl.freeserve.co.uk/lf/136kHz.html) has now been submitted to IARU region 1 for ratification. There are aspects in it which many of us are not in total agreement with, but it is has now been submitted so should be followed whereever reasonable. G4JNT has now explained his reasons for doing tests within the normal cw portion, clearly indicating you can never find a compromise which will meet all requirements. It might have helped if Andy had explained this beforehand, that it was a special case justifying an out of bandplan operation. I am afraid comments like 'So as far as we're concerned bandplans can go to the wall when this sort of requirement rears its head !' are not helpful. Neither does changing the bandplan if it doesn't meet your requirements! John Sexton wrote: >Do we need to stick with this bandplan? When it was devised it reflected interests >at that time among a rather small group. >Things have moved on since then. What has moved on since then is that those who use digital modes think they are now the only band users, and anybody else like me who has no interest in those modes whatsoever is not welcome, either on the band or on this reflector. The band is for all amateurs whatever their interests. The bandplan was devised with that in mind. Unfortunately many we used to have on the band have already lost interest in it because of this attitude. I can see the time very soon when the digital boys have got their way and turned the whole band over to those modes - I may well have already vacated the band myself by the time that happens. 73s Dave G3YMC dsergeant@iee.org dsergeant@btinternet.com http://www.dsergeant.btinternet.co.uk