Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3877 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 22:01:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 22:01:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 17313 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 22:01:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 22:01:15 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16O4Fc-00009u-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:57:44 +0000 Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au ([203.26.10.16]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16O4Fa-00009i-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:57:43 +0000 Received: from steve (ppp209.dyn154.pacific.net.au [210.23.154.209]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA11854 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:56:53 +1100 Message-ID: <00f201c19890$38d6d340$d19a17d2@steve> From: "Steve Olney" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020107152540.00aceaf0@gemini.herts.ac.uk> <001801c19822$783c1cc0$eb16073e@dave> Subject: LF: Re: Re: Band Plan Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:01:43 +1100 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 5.00.2314.1300 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: G'day Dave, > > beneath them (happens all the time on Top Band..). > "All the time" - as in 100%. Surely an overstatement. > >Although in the bandplans CW is allowed anywhere > And there is the key. CW IS allowed anywhere. In all the discussion I don't see any opposition to bandplans which are utilised in the manner for which they are intended - to **minimise** interference. The opposition comes from those who don't like the *mis-use* of bandplans to keep one group out of another groups sandpit. There have been many instances where people has been harassed for daring to stray into someone's sandpit. This has turned bandplans in many cases into un-gentleman's agreements. > > 136 is of course an unusual case, primarily because of its narrow band. Rightly or > wrongly therefore it has been decided that a hard and fast bandplan is not to be > made. > Ok, it was decided *not* to be made. > > However the requirement to make it available to all users and (narrowband) > modes remains, and it is on that basis that it has been drawn up and submitted. > Hang on - now it *is* to be made ??? que pasa ? In any case, while I don't agree with some of your arguments, I am heartened by the fact that you have presented your arguments in a clear, logical and precise way. If all the responses to those who have strayed into the wrong segment were greeted with this kind of mature response, I wager that there would be more people voting for a bandplan. (P.S. I wish I was presented with the problem of overcrowding here in VK - at least I might have someone to QSO with in the 200km radius that I am able to get a signal out on LF) 73s Steve VK2ZTO