Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mk02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9C11738000090; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1THVG4-0005Xo-Va for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:45:12 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1THVG4-0005Xf-9t for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:45:12 +0100 Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.164]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1THVG1-0002eQ-OR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:45:11 +0100 Received: from mtaout-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.133]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id EB83F1C000179; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from White (nrbg-4d073745.pool.mediaWays.net [77.7.55.69]) by mtaout-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 376B2E0000A8; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2695A322E3A04E98BEC43E7D633FCF94@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: Cc: References: <20961.6c91afbf.3d962a97@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20110426; t=1348818307; bh=vZi8psSRusZE1g2Gn1gLBvdKh6ZRb4AYitD/7B9OmgU=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=xdc34kOJLQ3FQ8Yo4r2MAzeAy2UB3yx+n7S+8HlwikjGmFe5tCLZsE0jxSyTmbTXw M1C8vpDIyd648k/7LMDt8Q0XMX9LjsTHoGkWRzAJek3VPBjnwSWssE7qbad0/2ZATH cBTns+nBm3c0fL/I+gel+PlItGGbMqUWV+tPUQhM= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:477141984:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Dear Walter, Roland, Klaus, thanks very much for working out this detailed suggestion! I do share the views of Alan and Rik that we should not now (and perhaps net ever) impose a "plan", in the sense that everyone is expected to adhere to it, or (even worse) that frequency usage may be enforced by authorities. I think that we do need "freedom to operate" on an experimental band - the aim is not to maximize amateur traffic throughput but to find inventive ways of dealing with existing difficulties. But still some form of "preliminary suggested usage" may be helpful. [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [64.12.207.164 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Scan-Signature: 3ecbf20a510e9846bb1bdaf7e0334c65 Subject: Re: LF: 630m Band Plan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01CD9D5D.EDF0E800" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mk02.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : mx.aol.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d6186506555b7261a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CD9D5D.EDF0E800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Walter, Roland, Klaus, thanks very much for working out this detailed suggestion! I do share the views of Alan and Rik that we should not now (and perhaps = net ever) impose a "plan", in the sense that everyone is expected to = adhere to it, or (even worse) that frequency usage may be enforced by = authorities. I think that we do need "freedom to operate" on an = experimental band - the aim is not to maximize amateur traffic = throughput but to find inventive ways of dealing with existing = difficulties. But still some form of "preliminary suggested usage" may = be helpful. It is certainly a good idea to have narrow guard bands around existing = aeronautical beacons. But there will be different ones in other regions, = like outside Europe. Coming from LF, I am a strong promoter of the narrow QRSS/DFCW 60 slots = for intercontinental work. They should be free of faster usage (eg = QRSS-3), and reasonably spaced from subbands with local signals from = within the assigned receive area. We may again adopt a scheme with = different, nonadjajend slots for different target areas ("TA / Eu"). One thought I keep pondering is whether we could somehow mitigate QSB by = frequency diversity. Current ruling here has an 800 Hz bandwidth = limitation. But it may be ok to transmit two "separate" but = complementary narrowband signals, each say 100 Hz wide but 6 kHz apart. = This could go from a simple FSK-CW scheme (eg. keydown on 472.6, key up = on 478.6), all the way to digitally processed "multi-narrowband" modes.=20 One day we may want to perform "ionosonde"-type channel sounding, by = sweeping or stepping a GPS-controlled carrier all over 7 kHz. =20 Or how about analog narrowband voice transmissions, fitting in 0.8 kHz? = It is neither CW nor digital, but certainly something worthwhile playing = with. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) PS I'm posting this on Yahoo as well, to avoid missing half of our = community. From: KKorn42@aol.com=20 Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:18 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: 630m Band Plan Dear All as a first proposal for discussion we present a "plan" that we coined = the "B31 Band Plan for 630m". The name derives from the DOK to which all = who shared ideas, belong. Just to state it once more: it is a first basis and proposal and those = who have an interest in operation between 472kHz and 479kHz (up to now = the slot allocated by the BuNetzA to German hams) are invited to agree, = discuss or provide better ideas. Several hams already provided specific proposals which were = incorporated. We deliberately did not detail too much, as we do not think, that all = can be fixed prior to actual demand. Please see attached gif-file. 1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3D3kHz). 2. Within that, a region for beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) followed = by a region for Slow CW (472,150kHz to 472,300kHz). 3. For TA-CW DX traffic or other long-haul DX, a calling frequency shall = be established at 472,600kHz. 4. For other CW traffic, another calling frequency (if the necessity = exists) shall be established in the upper region of the CW allocation at = 474,750kHz (474,500 occupied by "SA"). 5. The frequency 472,500kHz will not be allocated for special use (at = least for the time being), as a continuous carrier is audible 24/7 = throughout DL. 6. A slot for Digital Modes from 475,0kHz to 479,0 (=3D 4kHz). 7. Today it is much too early to decide which digital modes will be used = on 630m. We propose to leave this open for the future. WSPR (474,200kHz = Dial USB), OPERA and ROS (477,000kHz DIAL USB) have established = themselves on the shown frequencies. Some other modes that may be useful = for MW but can not yet be used (e.g. JT65HF) because they allow no = suitable frequency selection. 8. Digital Modes should not overlap each other (minor relocations may be = necessary). 9. Whether or not the shown "protection zones" of e.g. +/- 50Hz around = active NDB frequencies are necessary or not, ist still being discussed. 10. No further stipulations will be given. Walter DJ2LF, Roland DL3NDR, Klaus DJ6LB NB (DJ6LB): Upon request I provide (via separate mail) a picture with = better resolution .=20 ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CD9D5D.EDF0E800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Walter, Roland,=20 Klaus,
 
thanks very much for = working out this=20 detailed suggestion!
 
I do share the views=20 of Alan and Rik = that we=20 should not now (and perhaps net ever) impose a "plan", in the = sense=20 that everyone is expected to adhere to it, or (even worse) that = frequency=20 usage may be enforced by authorities. I think that we do need = "freedom to=20 operate" on an experimental band - the aim is not to maximize amateur = traffic=20 throughput but to find inventive ways of dealing with existing = difficulties. But=20 still some form of "preliminary suggested usage" may be=20 helpful.
 
It is certainly a = good idea=20 to have narrow guard bands around existing aeronautical = beacons. But=20 there will be different ones in other regions, like outside=20 Europe.
 
Coming from LF, I = am a strong=20 promoter of the narrow QRSS/DFCW 60 slots for intercontinental work. = They should=20 be free of faster usage (eg QRSS-3), and reasonably = spaced from=20 subbands with local signals from within the assigned receive = area. We=20 may again adopt a scheme with different, nonadjajend  slots for = different=20 target areas ("TA / Eu").
 
One thought I keep = pondering is=20 whether we could somehow mitigate QSB by frequency diversity. Current = ruling=20 here has an 800 Hz bandwidth limitation. But it may be ok = to=20 transmit two "separate" but complementary narrowband signals, each = say 100=20 Hz wide but 6 kHz apart. This could go from a simple FSK-CW scheme = (eg.=20 keydown on 472.6, key up on 478.6), all the way to digitally processed=20 "multi-narrowband" modes.
 
One day we = may want to perform=20 "ionosonde"-type channel sounding, by sweeping or stepping a = GPS-controlled=20 carrier all over 7 kHz.  
 
Or how = about analog narrowband=20 voice transmissions, fitting in 0.8 kHz? It is neither CW nor=20 digital, but certainly something worthwhile playing = with.
 
Best 73,
Markus = (DF6NM)
 
PS I'm posting this on = Yahoo as well,=20 to avoid missing half of our community.
 
 
From: KKorn42@aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:18 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Subject: LF: 630m Band Plan

Dear All
as a first proposal for discussion we present a "plan" = that we=20 coined the "B31 Band Plan for 630m". The name derives from the DOK to = which all=20 who shared ideas, belong.
Just to state it once more: it is a first = basis and=20 proposal and those who have an interest in operation between 472kHz and = 479kHz=20 (up to now the slot allocated by the BuNetzA to German hams) are invited = to=20 agree, discuss or provide better ideas.
Several hams already provided = specific proposals which were incorporated.
We deliberately did not = detail=20 too much, as we do not think, that all can be fixed prior to actual=20 demand.
 
Please see attached gif-file.
 
1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3D3kHz).
2. Within that, a = region for=20 beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) followed by a region for Slow CW = (472,150kHz=20 to 472,300kHz).
3. For TA-CW DX traffic or other long-haul DX, a = calling=20 frequency shall be established at 472,600kHz.
4. For other CW = traffic,=20 another calling frequency (if the necessity exists) shall be established = in the=20 upper region of the CW allocation at 474,750kHz (474,500 occupied by=20 "SA").
5. The frequency 472,500kHz will not be allocated for special = use (at=20 least for the time being), as a continuous carrier is audible 24/7 = throughout=20 DL.
6. A slot for Digital Modes from 475,0kHz to 479,0 (=3D = 4kHz).
7. Today=20 it is much too early to decide which digital modes will be used on 630m. = We=20 propose to leave this open for the future. WSPR (474,200kHz Dial USB), = OPERA and=20 ROS (477,000kHz DIAL USB) have established themselves on the shown = frequencies.=20 Some other modes that may be useful for MW but can not yet be used (e.g. = JT65HF)=20 because they allow no suitable frequency selection.
8. Digital Modes = should=20 not overlap each other (minor relocations may be necessary).
9. = Whether or=20 not the shown "protection zones" of e.g. +/- 50Hz around active NDB = frequencies=20 are necessary or not, ist still being discussed.
10. No further = stipulations=20 will be given.
 
Walter DJ2LF, Roland DL3NDR, Klaus DJ6LB
 
NB (DJ6LB): Upon request I provide (via separate mail) a picture = with=20 better resolution .
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01CD9D5D.EDF0E800--