Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 3DC5F3800008A; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 06:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr5We-0002NU-5h for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:33:24 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr5Wd-0002NL-98 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:33:23 +0000 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tr5WZ-00086a-TN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:33:22 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id dt10so7358404wgb.15 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 03:32:59 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer :in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=yvNwESwy8I9VBX5x6oLlQyWW9WIvm4O8KIdOkMXMofY=; b=nioMC7WtiWM2zsCojXwjlb/3x+zxGCQY+wvy9Frr07krzfv0MY3D7H8DvAM1aOreBc YqC9n1ZYuhCFz6bwOTIeO8P6li9fAh3phPQxrJXELPICsaslZsYluUYJOIzVn14wzL9J oyr3jf36zFFUE7pCBLPHhIEXOrgcanDFcoiZWusq7WNKuh0IR62C+qjeTSRZ3vCKoob1 W4Y36Lxg5CmNwi3B/idjCHnNXwuK+9mP/1wBFuYXt9bgC/5sdFPcvz9DULj4N7oEza7W IpR41k61n8DFm89HUVDlbTQJDdUhNOZsFbgxlbm1r2HuWUjXTJOXyrnsfQDE7YCtAMrY 0N9g== X-Received: by 10.180.109.195 with SMTP id hu3mr72468040wib.31.1357299179132; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 03:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.7] (cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust740.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com. [86.14.226.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm93621095wif.11.2013.01.04.03.32.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Jan 2013 03:32:58 -0800 (PST) References: From: Roger Lapthorn X-Mailer: iPod Mail (10A523) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:32:53 +0000 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: A well reasoned email Colin. Although SSB is technically feasible it should not be encouraged. BTW, I tend to agree that WSPR is oddly positioned in the new band and personally am in favour of a "light touch" bandplan if only to encourage folks to congregate in the right watering holes. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [74.125.82.48 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rogerlapthorn[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 MIME_QP_LONG_LINE RAW: Quoted-printable line longer than 76 chars 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: ffe064f96511207870e163c174ad6a49 Subject: Re: Re[3]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-54777AFC-61C1-4AD7-9182-2AB7F6F04C5B 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=HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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: 3039ac1d40cd50e6be396d0e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --Apple-Mail-54777AFC-61C1-4AD7-9182-2AB7F6F04C5B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A well reasoned email Colin. Although SSB is technically feasible it should n= ot be encouraged.=20 BTW, I tend to agree that WSPR is oddly positioned in the new band and perso= nally am in favour of a "light touch" bandplan if only to encourage folks to= congregate in the right watering holes.=20 Very encouraged by results so far with my minimal system. Had a nice CW QSO w= ith G3XIZ last night on CW who answered my CQ call.=20 73s Roger G3XBM=20 On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:07, "M5FRA - Colin" wrote: > I am sorry but I did not express myself very clearly in the last couple of= posts and there were lots of typos. I will attempt to explain why I am oppo= sed to digital voice/SSB on 630m. > =20 > The main reason is that although it is technically possible it is impracti= cal as it will take up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth which will eff= ectively deny other people the space to operate. > =20 > The idea that it could be daylight hours only, VOX only etc etc as a gentl= emen=E2=80=99s agreement is wildly optimistic in light of the abuse of the o= ther gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreements called bandplans. > =20 > I also feel strongly that we are on the bands as a privilege and not a rig= ht. I know for sure that there is a lot of abuse of license conditions and h= ave heard ops openly admit to running 1kw+ in order to work DX or to =E2=80=98= level the playing field=E2=80=99 in contests. That sort of abuse will only d= o us harm and although some argue that Ofcom are not interested in such thin= gs let me assure you that they are. > =20 > The new 630m band is allocated on a secondary basis to aeronautical mobile= users. There are still NDBs within the band and some countries impose restr= iction or deny access to 630m altogether because of the shared use. It will o= nly take somebody to either accidentally or deliberately QRM to an aeronauti= cal user for us to lose the band or face more restrictions. I can see the he= adlines now! > =20 > Finally, and I will not post here again on this subject, I am not anti SSB= , anti contests, anti much else, but do believe we need a responsible attitu= de to how we use the bands. We should not be constantly pushing for change t= o suit our own interests or deliberately flouting the law, in the long term t= hat will only lead to loss of privilege not more access. > =20 > And to answer an aggressive direct email which suggested I **** off and pl= ay somewhere else, yes I do operate digital modes and have done for 40+ year= s starting with a Creed 7B. I also use SSB, CW, QRP and QRO and even microwa= ves. > =20 > Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA > =20 > m5fra.org.uk --Apple-Mail-54777AFC-61C1-4AD7-9182-2AB7F6F04C5B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A well reasoned email Colin. Although S= SB is technically feasible it should not be encouraged. 

=
BTW, I tend to agree that WSPR is oddly positioned in the new ban= d and personally am in favour of a "light touch" bandplan if only to encoura= ge folks to congregate in the right watering holes. 

Very encouraged by results so far with my minimal system. Had a nice C= W QSO with G3XIZ last night on CW who answered my CQ call. 
<= br>
73s
Roger G3XBM 

On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:07= , "M5FRA - Colin" <m5fra@btintern= et.com> wrote:

I am sorry but I did not expre= ss myself very clearly in the last couple of posts and there were lots of ty= pos. I will attempt to explain why I am opposed to digital voice/SSB on 630m= .

 

The main reason is that althou= gh it is technically possible it is impractical as it will take up a disprop= ortionate amount of bandwidth which will effectively deny other people the s= pace to operate.

 

The idea that it could be dayl= ight hours only, VOX only etc etc as a gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreement is= wildly optimistic in light of the abuse of the other gentlemen=E2=80=99s ag= reements called bandplans.

 

I also feel strongly that we a= re on the bands as a privilege and not a right. I know for sure that there i= s a lot of abuse of license conditions and have heard ops openly admit to ru= nning 1kw+ in order to work DX or to =E2=80=98level the playing field=E2=80=99= in contests. That sort of abuse will only do us harm and although some argu= e that Ofcom are not interested in such things let me assure you that they a= re.

 

The new 630m band is allocated= on a secondary basis to aeronautical mobile users. There are still NDBs wit= hin the band and some countries impose restriction or deny access to 630m al= together because of the shared use. It will only take somebody to either acc= identally or deliberately QRM to an aeronautical user for us to lose the ban= d or face more restrictions. I can see the headlines now!

 

Finally, and I will not post h= ere again on this subject, I am not anti SSB, anti contests, anti much else,= but do believe we need a responsible attitude to how we use the bands. We s= hould not be constantly pushing for change to suit our own interests or deli= berately flouting the law, in the long term that will only lead to loss of p= rivilege not more access.

 

And to answer an aggressive&nb= sp;direct email which suggested I **** off and play somewhere else, yes I do= operate digital modes and have done for 40+ years starting with a Creed 7B.= I also use SSB, CW, QRP and QRO and even microwaves.

 

Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA
 
= --Apple-Mail-54777AFC-61C1-4AD7-9182-2AB7F6F04C5B--