Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mj02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mj02.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.21.164.86]) by air-dd04.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDD044-86ac4d6e81012a3; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:40:17 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9A0113800041F; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Puq1I-0008Ig-8z for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:39:28 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Puq1H-0008IX-TE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:39:27 +0000 Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Puq1G-0001y8-35 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:39:27 +0000 Received: from aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20110302173856.NWRX19887.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:38:56 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.2] (really [82.5.252.56]) by aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20110302173856.BXFU28282.aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[192.168.2.2]> for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:38:56 +0000 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:38:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4D6E80AA.6155.1B7C915@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> In-reply-to: References: , X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) Content-description: Mail message body X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=JvdXmxIgLJv2/GthKqHpGJEEHukvLcvELVXUanXFreg= c=1 sm=0 a=A2c7mNyGa9EA:10 a=9YlaCzn6_68A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=uov2c1JqVnhIEFSU-FMA:9 a=Jrtr8rNRWuDWKSMKAzQA:7 a=N8A_gXbDQKCX3F8g4fLSpUef2vYA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: WRC-2012 proposal for 'near' 500kHz band(s) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039400c89a44d6e80ff17ca X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none On 2 Mar 2011 at 15:52, Roger Lapthorn wrote: > Why not try for 472-487kHz the amateur radio service in *every* > region? Is there any logic having two proposals (at least)? Wouldn't > the chances of success at WRC-2012 been higher if there was a common > frequency proposal worldwide for an allocation at MF? > Roger G3XBM The logic is that if the commercial interests in only one region objects to the proposed common frequency the whole proposal falls. It is up to the amateur service in each region to work out what they feel would have the greatest chance of success. Ideally there should be a worldwide allocation, but we have lived with split bands before, and in fact voluntarily split our own bands on a geographical basis. Mike, G3XDV ===========