Message-ID: <003901cd9d5b$6fd383d0$0501a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <20961.6c91afbf.3d962a97@aol.com> <50656760.3070401@freenet.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:27:10 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band Plan
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Wolf
The other evening the same thing was happening on 472.5 OZ7FOC was in Beacon
mode causing considerable QRM to some German stations and myself trying to
make a QSO. It was difficult for me listening on the frequency. One other
German station has a habit of suddenly appearing in Beacon mode to the
detriment of others working on or around the frequency.
Beacons are not necessary in any Mode on this band because there are more
than enough NDB'S about if anyone is interested.
 73 es gl
de Mal/G3KEV


----- Original Message -----
From: "wolf_dl4yhf" <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band Plan


> Hello Klaus and all,
>
> I appreciate the effort to co-ordinate the activities on MF
> (frequency-wise), but like Alan and Markus I'm not very comfortable with
> the a "band plan" at this very early stage.
>
> You wrote:
>
> 1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3kHz).
> 2. Within that, a region for beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) followed
> by a region for Slow CW (472,150kHz to 472,300kHz).
>
> Heavens no. Beacons within the IF filter bandwidth of many analog
> receivers around 472.5 kHz, with the high possibility to overload the
> frontend - please don't. Even IQ2MI can be annoying sometimes when
> stations call around 501 kHz.
> Also consider that, at the moment, the "lower end" of the band is the
> most valuable part of it.
> Just consider what happens if your next door neighbour decides to run a
> beacon there.
> IMHO, beacons there are evil, and we already have more than enough of
> them on MF.
> *If* somebody really thinks he needs to put up a long-running beacon,
> suggest to get as close to the "upper end" as possible.
>
> Wait until other countries get on, and don't carve anything in stone
> unless an authority really forces us to do so.
>
> Well, this is a very personal opinion. I appreciate your coordination
> work, but I am not comfortable with authoritive bandplans on MF. Let's
> coordinate things here, and on "the other" group as necessary. We need a
> lot of flexibility on MF.
>
> Cheers,
>    Wolf .
>
>