Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 96ED3380000CA; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 06:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr5rz-0002fD-8A for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:55:27 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr5ry-0002f4-DH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:55:26 +0000 Received: from nm3-vm0.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([212.82.108.88]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tr5rv-0008EB-An for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:55:25 +0000 Received: from [212.82.108.229] by nm3.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2013 11:55:02 -0000 Received: from [77.238.189.18] by tm2.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2013 11:55:02 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp818.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2013 11:55:02 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1357300502; bh=Y8J9yWT8FDQZmGu9wUozjguaibTgTXVuW65ZVnNpi7w=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status; b=BUEfn2VEzSc7xACBIW2o25bpcKXmqmRD/Y3BLWHOUE/4QIiwE+zdiMpjHII2ERXXe0bMRtZI8Zuna3lm4WhkIICer4Qm7IyYKYCJIDfqLwn+faZCZN23EJfPV7K+5CuOwPZtYrgc82Ovzx6ew7Ve8h/99X+p4Rz3GdwNtLdtb9c= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 653093.76930.bm@smtp818.mail.ird.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: AxrZe7YVM1ktFjftpppZanMUCtwxzkc3hnHObaoR1wUMltL 3Nq8KbVW40xbl5GgrMePbJBB07Vu93FcZeiLPj258YXDqU8wSoqFkcK5XJLg mVSMg6bz1Bco.7DD8nwiE82kSDob2maOp7lcJxMvuwZyht.hp396xMbYObox NKZWKeSslmBtdbHCCZjHg.kkZtmJMaAQpI13n5sOKE6NjWY2vZ.pEQdtP4tB GzsyNud571WO14SRZDNMJxrH3lYgFvI36gWYYwZ7xlHekYvYqVa04dRHbfid HAx4wcV4lMFl9muJ7cv1rwk8BxKoCBQ1yM8ZBhkpF9U6_m5YT9FBCa_H5Ypi uGOwRbdQ.Utrg033TBnGEwhCPG5lGGZ9mbygJSQwWxisOSGAMc1PDLT3.7L3 G5zsiV5xiIW0tETAoCTYkmpNo4BuH9VS2GhT310v1Q1zUN1byosGS0Wu9jJm 9V7Psc_fKxYzxGhwQ0yveI_WJuJR.QFReEbiIGe2cIti2DTyqrRxDRer8nqV d X-Yahoo-SMTP: MKdsdU6swBAxH2g8PCcASiNCWoOpVZv7QWF1s1O18Nys Received: from [127.0.0.1] (m5fra@86.141.137.109 with login) by smtp818.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 04 Jan 2013 11:55:02 +0000 UTC From: "M5FRA - Colin" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:54:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.15145.0 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130103-1, 03/01/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Roger, thank you for your support. I must admit to being very disillusioned with the response I have received and do not like the abusive direct emails from anonymous senders. I decided today to give up ion MF as it should be fun rather than conflict. I know I should have known better and could have phrased my emails better but I always had a smile on my face which is hard to convey electronically. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.82.108.88 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: c8f89d347648298cef9c3b88c7a1cae2 Subject: Re[5]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB8343CD46-7628-499D-B306-21CCD265C32C" 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 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-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d601a50e6c36d1f29 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --------=_MB8343CD46-7628-499D-B306-21CCD265C32C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Roger, thank you for your support. I must admit to being very disillusioned=20 with the response I have received and do not like the abusive direct=20 emails from anonymous senders. I decided today to give up ion MF as it=20 should be fun rather than conflict. I know I should have known better=20 and could have phrased my emails better but I always had a smile on my=20 face which is hard to convey electronically.=20 MF is difficult here as my antenna is in the neighbours garden, they=20 happen to be the in laws! They have also reported Morse code coming=20 over their wireless! They are very good about it all but I do not want=20 to push it too much. I have an antenna down lead switch box (vacuum=20 relay) and an coax switch that needs to be installed yet that means a=20 small shed/box in their flower bed. So, all in all may ditch the=20 experiment and return to HF QRP. Colin - M5FRA m5fra.org.uk ------ Original Message ------ From: "Roger Lapthorn" To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Sent: 04/01/2013 11:32:53 Subject: Re: Re[3]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? >A well reasoned email Colin. Although SSB is technically feasible it=20 >should not be encouraged.=20 > >BTW, I tend to agree that WSPR is oddly positioned in the new band and=20 >personally am in favour of a "light touch" bandplan if only to=20 >encourage folks to congregate in the right watering holes.=20 > >Very encouraged by results so far with my minimal system. Had a nice=20 >CW QSO with 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=20 >>couple of posts and there were lots of typos. I will attempt to=20 >>explain why I am opposed to digital voice/SSB on 630m. >>The main reason is that although it is technically possible it is=20 >>impractical as it will take up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth=20 >>which will effectively deny other people the space to operate. >>The idea that it could be daylight hours only, VOX only etc etc as a=20 >>gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreement is wildly optimistic in light of the abuse= of=20 >>the other gentlemen=E2=80=99s agreements called bandplans.=20 >>I also feel strongly that we are on the bands as a privilege and not=20 >>a right. I know for sure that there is a lot of abuse of license=20 >>conditions and have heard ops openly admit to running 1kw+ in order=20 >>to work DX or to =E2=80=98level the playing field=E2=80=99 in contests.= That sort of=20 >>abuse will only do us harm and although some argue that Ofcom are not=20 >>interested in such things let me assure you that they are.=20 >>The new 630m band is allocated on a secondary basis to aeronautical=20 >>mobile users. There are still NDBs within the band and some countries=20 >>impose restriction or deny access to 630m altogether because of the=20 >>shared use. It will only take somebody to either accidentally or=20 >>deliberately QRM to an aeronautical user for us to lose the band or=20 >>face more restrictions. I can see the headlines now! >>Finally, and I will not post here again on this subject, I am not=20 >>anti SSB, anti contests, anti much else, but do believe we need a=20 >>responsible attitude to how we use the bands. We should not be=20 >>constantly pushing for change to suit our own interests or=20 >>deliberately flouting the law, in the long term that will only lead=20 >>to loss of privilege not more access.=20 >>And to answer an aggressive direct email which suggested I **** off=20 >>and play somewhere else, yes I do operate digital modes and have done=20 >>for 40+ years starting with a Creed 7B. I also use SSB, CW, QRP and=20 >>QRO and even microwaves. >>Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA >>m5fra.org.uk --------=_MB8343CD46-7628-499D-B306-21CCD265C32C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Roger,
 
thank you for your support. I must admit to being very disillusioned= with the response I have received and do not like the abusive direct email= s from anonymous senders. I decided today to give up ion MF as it should= be fun rather than conflict. I know I should have known better and could= have phrased my emails better but I always had a smile on my face which= is hard to convey electronically.
 
MF is difficult here as my antenna is in the neighbours garden, they= happen to be the in laws! They have also reported Morse code coming over= their wireless! They are very good about it all but I do not want to push= it too much. I have an antenna down lead switch box (vacuum relay) and = an coax switch that needs to be installed yet that means a small shed/box= in their flower bed. So, all in all may ditch the experiment and return= to HF QRP.
 
 
Colin - M5FRA
 


------ Original Message ------
From: "Roger Lapthorn"= <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>
To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <= rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: 04/01/2013 11:32:53
Subject:= Re: Re[3]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ?
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 encourag= e folks to congregate in the right watering holes. 

Very encouraged by results so far with my minimal system. Had a nice= CW QSO with G3XIZ last night on CW who answered my CQ call. 

73s
Roger G3XBM 

On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:07, "M5FRA - Colin" <= m5fra@btinternet.com> 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 opposed to digital voice/SSB on= 630m.

 

The main reason is that although= it is technically possible it is impractical as it will take up a dispropo= rtionate amount of bandwidth which will effectively deny other people the= space to operate.

 

The idea that it could be dayligh= t 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=99= s agreements called bandplans.

 

I also feel strongly that we are= on the bands as a privilege and not a right. I know for sure that there= is a lot of abuse of license conditions and have heard ops openly admit= to running 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 argue that Ofcom are not interested in such things let me assure you= that they are.

 

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 restriction or deny access to= 630m altogether because of the shared use. It will only take somebody to= either accidentally or deliberately QRM to an aeronautical user for us = to lose the band or face more restrictions. I can see the headlines now!

 

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 attitude to how we use the bands. = We should not be constantly pushing for change to suit our own interests= or deliberately flouting the law, in the long term that will only lead = to loss of privilege not more access.

 

And to answer an aggressive = 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
 
--------=_MB8343CD46-7628-499D-B306-21CCD265C32C--