From: pat <g4gvw@aol.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <2E9209A2DE024870A8A3FF9E2AD8B8A4@D810>
References: <6C05E5021A484E229E4D20124C3D4AA9@TraceyPC>
	 <002d01cceb30$87c42cc0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf><4F3A8898.40302@xs4all.nl>
	 <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A015771@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>
	 <002801ccec2a$6b148430$1502a8c0@Clemens04>
	 <CAA8k23RZxN9vCFMLLQpX9yXphDx3FHDqzP6Jh=6sA-2BkxpoDg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2E9209A2DE024870A8A3FF9E2AD8B8A4@D810>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:32:42 +0000
Message-ID: <1329395562.2656.3.camel@g4gvw-high-grade>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by imr-da01.mx.aol.com id q1GCWifW023753
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none
Subject: RE: LF: Re: WRC-12 Approves the New 472-479 kHz Amateur Radio
 Allocation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:484384384:93952408  
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d237.2 ; domain : mx.aol.com DKIM : fail  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60d54f3cf7aa7c68
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


OK, So does that mean it is fine to set up a station right on the mutual
frontier of an adjoining country to one who disallows operation within
their own frontiers? RF is funny stuff - it tends to leak through such
barriers <:?




On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 23:14 +0000, GW0EZY (Terry) wrote:
> Andy is absolutely right. Most of the countries that objected to this
> allocation are the =E2=80=9Cusual suspects=E2=80=9D often not permittin=
g any amateur
> radio and certainly objecting to any increase in allocations to the
> amateur service as a matter of principle. A similar footnote in the
> International Radio Regulations (agreed in 2007) exists for the 136
> kHz band:
>=20
> =20
>=20
> 5.67 Additional allocation: in Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan,
> the band 130-148.5 kHz is
>=20
> also allocated to the radionavigation service on a secondary basis.
> Within and between these countries
>=20
> this service shall have an equal right to operate. (WRC-07)
>=20
> =20
>=20
> 5.67A Stations in the amateur service using frequencies in the band
> 135.7-137.8 kHz shall not exceed a
>=20
> maximum radiated power of 1 W (e.i.r.p.) and shall not cause harmful
> interference to stations of the
>=20
> radionavigation service operating in countries listed in No. 5.67.
> (WRC-07)
>=20
> =20
>=20
> 5.67B The use of the band 135.7-137.8 kHz in Algeria, Egypt, Iran
> (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Libyan
>=20
> Arab Jamahiriya, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic, Sudan and Tunisia is
> limited to the fixed and maritime
>=20
> mobile services. The amateur service shall not be used in the
> above-mentioned countries in the band
>=20
> 135.7-137.8 kHz, and this should be taken into account by the
> countries authorizing such use. (WRC-07)
>=20
> =20
>=20
> It was extremely unusual and completely unnecessary to have such a
> =E2=80=9Cnon-allocation=E2=80=9D footnote in the RR. These countries ar=
e unlikely to
> have sufficient monitoring capability to prepare a detailed
> interference submission to the ITU. Also, the relevant assignments
> must be registered with the ITU to claim protection.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Each Head of Delegation at a WRC signs the Final Acts but this is
> simply an undertaking that there is no major reservation and the
> country concerned =E2=80=9Cpromises=E2=80=9D not to do anything that wo=
uld jeopardise
> the operation of this International Treaty. However, each country is
> supposed to formally ratify the Final Acts at some future date =E2=80=93=
 in
> some cases this can take forever as some countries simply do not have
> the national legislation in place to achieve it. Even developed
> countries take some time e.g. Australia ratified the WRC 2003 Final
> Acts in 2006 =E2=80=93 only a year before the next WRC!
>=20
> =20
>=20
> The CEPT (includes Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe including
> Russia and CIS) makes joint proposals to each WRC. All EU countries
> are supposed to formally support these positions. Non EU countries
> usually do (e.g. Norway, Switzerland) but Russia and CIS usually also
> make their own proposals which can oppose CEPT. There were 42 CEPT
> countries supporting the CEPT proposal for this agenda item (only
> Russia and some CIS did not). All EU countries supported. The CEPT
> proposed 472-480 kHz at 5w e.i.r.p., so a result of 472-479 kHz was a
> good compromise!
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Once the WRC has completed and Final Acts signed, the CEPT Electronics
> Communication Committee (ECC) will incorporate the WRC results into
> the current recommendations for European harmonised frequency use
> which all EU countries normally adopt into their national frequency
> allocation tables. This can take time! For UK amateurs, Ofcom is
> rather busy organising the massive amount of frequency use associated
> with the Olympic games in London this summer. We might have to wait.
> Although I was pleasantly surprised to get my 5 MHz permit issued
> within 5 days just after New Year 2012. The 5 MHz use is of course
> also on a non-interference basis and has far more international
> interference potential but seems to work without problem.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> 73 Terry
>=20
>                                   =20
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Andy Talbot
> Sent: 15 February 2012 21:45
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WRC-12 Approves the New 472-479 kHz Amateur Radio
> Allocation
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> But what is interference?  =20
>=20
>=20
> If none is reported, none is caused.
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> And who is going to report interference to a service no one uses
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> 'Andy
>=20
>=20
> www.g4jnt.com
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> On 15 February 2012 21:40, Clemens Paul <cpaul@gmx.net> wrote:
>=20
> Greetings all,
>=20
> I wonder what "secondary user on non-interference basis" means in
> practice.
> As we know most NDBs are AM modulated with about 1kHz.
> Now it would be interesting to know what selectivity/bandwidth DF
> receivers
> for NDBs in aeroplanes might have.
> Imagine they have 1kHz or even 2kHz (quite possible).
> For non interfering such a receiver one would have to stay well
> without that
> BW.
> Hence with a few NDBs spread between 422 and 479kHz there would
> virtually remain no usable frequency for us amateurs if we wanted to
> make
> 100% sure not to interfere any aeroplanes' beacon reception.
>=20
> 73
> Clemens
> DL4RAJ
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20

--=20
73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK