Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mk06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 7365A38000081; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:15:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U4ZXb-0006ZV-Ix for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:14:07 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U4ZXa-0006ZM-Ha for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:14:06 +0000 Received: from out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.241]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U4ZXY-0006y6-08 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:14:05 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvAJADSpF1FcF/gu/2dsb2JhbABFgkmrYpFqBHgXc4IaBQEBBQgBAQNBCAIQBBgBAQMFAgEDEQQBAQEJFw4UAQQYAgYMCggGDwQBCQECAgEBAQIJBIdfAxMItRIDiWWMP4EnGYQLA44HhCmCH4srgWqFE4MG X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,637,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="408491648" Received: from host-92-23-248-46.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.23.248.46]) by out1.ip05ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 10 Feb 2013 16:13:41 +0000 Message-ID: <009f01ce07a9$92bb77f0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6FE2E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:13:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) 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: But the same thing has been happening on here for years. Those shouting most and expression opinions about LF and MF are never heard on the bands. They are very verbal on the reflector but absent on both LF and MF when it comes to generating signals or engaging in QSO activity. There are a few of us active daily around EU working on CW, the other few are machine minders generating repeative Unattended BEACONS on Data and getting reports via Internet database. These Beacon bashers are unaware what is happening on adjacent frequencies since the only criteria is DIAL FREQUENCY which never changes and these absent operators are not in a position to express an opinion about Band Planning for other modes like CW or QRSS As far as I am concerned there is already a BAND PLAN in operation by the Data operators specifying a DIAL FREQUENCY for their modes WSPR and OPERA for example. CW Operators do not need a band plan because the mode is easily recognized and can fit into any available space on any band. Find a clear frequency call CQ or net onto someone else, make a call and have a QSO Some sort of band plan might be desireable for Appliance Operators so they can start an orchestral concert on a given frequencies and get the time SYNC right for the Violins g3kev [...] Content analysis details: (3.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 3.8 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 135a8c1b14bcccf9db1070c2f16443c8 Subject: LF: Re: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009C_01CE07A9.9273E7A0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,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-sid: 3039ac1d618a5117c79b2949 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009C_01CE07A9.9273E7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable But the same thing has been happening on here for years. Those shouting = most and expression opinions about LF and MF are never heard on the = bands. They are very verbal on the reflector but absent on both LF and = MF when it comes to generating signals or engaging in QSO activity. There are a few of us active daily around EU working on CW, the other = few are machine minders generating repeative Unattended BEACONS on Data = and getting reports via Internet database. These Beacon bashers are = unaware what is happening on adjacent frequencies since the only = criteria is DIAL FREQUENCY which never changes and these absent = operators are not in a position to express an opinion about Band = Planning for other modes like CW or QRSS As far as I am concerned there is already a BAND PLAN in operation by = the Data operators specifying a DIAL FREQUENCY for their modes WSPR and = OPERA for example. CW Operators do not need a band plan because the mode = is easily recognized and can fit into any available space on any band. = Find a clear frequency call CQ or net onto someone else, make a call and = have a QSO Some sort of band plan might be desireable for Appliance Operators so = they can start an orchestral concert on a given frequencies and get the time SYNC right for the Violins g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rik Strobbe=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk ; rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:09 PM Subject: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band = Plan Robert, Toni, all, the urge to regulate seems stronger that the need to listen to = opinions of the band users ;-) I will advice the UBA HF manager how to respond (and eventually vote) = on this proposal, preferably based on a position supported by the = majority of the actual band users. I hope other can do so within their society. To get the discussion started, my (personal) opinion: At this moment it is far too early for a rigid band plan as proposed = by NRRL, but a recommendation with a list of centre of activity = frequencies for the different modes could be useful. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] = namens robert_la4ana [la4ana73@yahoo.com] Verzonden: zondag 10 februari 2013 15:16 To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan =20 Hi Toni and LF/MF Group, As promised, I have been in contact with the NRRL representative responsible for initiating this proposal, our HF Manager LA4LN. I communicated to him the general opinion of the MF community about the proposed band plan, indicating that it is too early for rulemaking. In addition, I said that such a proposal should be discussed with the = users (in this case just a handfull in Norway) before any suggestions for rulemaking are forwarded to the IARU. The NRRL HF Manager responded by saying that this proposal was coordinated with IARU Region 1 HF Chairman DK4VW, who welcomed such a proposal. Both officials feel that it is important to discuss frequency/mode issues for 630 meter at the the forthcoming Vienna meeting in April because of the long lead times (years) required for gaining approval to new plans. Whichever way we feel about a bandplan for 630 meter, it is important = to inform our representatives about this before the issue is discussed at the meeting in Vienna. 73 de Robert, LA4ANA --- In rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk, "Anton (Toni)" wrote: > > NRRL is proposing a band plan for 630m > What do you think about it? > 73 de Toni, HB9ASB > > Recommendation > From the viewpoints of NRRL we would (at the time being) like to present the > following proposal for a 630 m IARU Region 1 bandplan: > 472 - 479 kHz (630 m) > 472 - 475 kHz CW only =96 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz > 472.000 - 472.150 CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated) > 472.150 - 472.300 CW QRSS > 472.600 CW DX Calling > 474.750 CW Calling > 475 - 479 kHz CW + digimodes =96 maximum bandwidth 500 Hz > Contests should be discouraged in this very narrow 630 m band where radio > amateurs are secondary users. > Comment: > NRRL feels that it will be premature to further subdivide different digimodes. This > may be better to do at the next conference, if necessary, after considering > experiences. > __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a new = topic=20 Messages in this topic (8)=20 Recent Activity: a.. New Members 3=20 Visit Your Group=20 Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest =95 Unsubscribe =95 Terms of Use. =20 __,_._,___ ------=_NextPart_000_009C_01CE07A9.9273E7A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
But the same thing has been happening on here = for years.=20 Those shouting most and expression opinions about LF and MF are never = heard on=20 the bands. They are very verbal on the reflector but absent on both LF = and MF=20 when it comes to generating signals or engaging in QSO = activity.
There are a few of us active daily around EU = working on=20 CW,  the other few are machine minders generating = repeative=20 Unattended  BEACONS on Data and = getting=20 reports via Internet database. These Beacon bashers are unaware what is=20 happening on adjacent frequencies since the only criteria is DIAL = FREQUENCY=20 which never changes and these absent operators are not in a position to = express=20 an opinion about Band Planning for other modes like CW or = QRSS
As far as I am concerned there is = already a BAND=20 PLAN in operation by the Data operators specifying a DIAL FREQUENCY = for=20 their modes WSPR and OPERA for example. CW Operators do = not need=20 a band plan because the mode is easily recognized and can fit into = any=20 available space on any band. Find a clear frequency call CQ or net onto = someone=20 else, make a call and have a QSO
Some sort of band plan might be desireable for = Appliance=20 Operators so they can start an orchestral concert on a given=20 frequencies
and get the time SYNC right for the = Violins
g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Rik Strobbe
To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups= .co.uk=20 ; rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 = 3:09=20 PM
Subject: LF: RE: = [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL=20 Proposal for a 630m Band Plan

Robert, Toni, all,

 

the urge=20 = to regulate seems stronger that<= A>=20 the need to listen to opinions of the=20 band users ;-)

I will advice = the UBA HF=20 manager how to respond = (and eventually=20 vote) on this=20 = proposal, preferably based on = a position supported by=20 the majority of the actual band=20 users.

I hope other can=20 do so within their = society.

 

To get the discussion=20 started, my (personal) = opinion:

At this moment it=20 is far too early for=20 a rigid band plan as proposed by=20 NRRL, but = a recommendation with a=20 list of centre=20 of activity frequencies for the = different=20 modes could be useful.

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - = OR7T

 

Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk=20 [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] namens robert_la4ana=20 [la4ana73@yahoo.com]
Verzonden: zondag 10 februari 2013=20 15:16
To: = rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
Onderwerp:=20 [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band = Plan

 =20


Hi Toni and LF/MF Group,

As promised, I have been in = contact=20 with the NRRL representative
responsible for initiating this = proposal, our=20 HF Manager LA4LN. I
communicated to him the general opinion of the = MF=20 community about the
proposed band plan, indicating that it is too = early for=20 rulemaking. In
addition, I said that such a proposal should be = discussed=20 with the users
(in this case just a handfull in Norway) before any=20 suggestions for
rulemaking are forwarded to the IARU.

The = NRRL HF=20 Manager responded by saying that this proposal was
coordinated with = IARU=20 Region 1 HF Chairman DK4VW, who welcomed such a
proposal. Both = officials=20 feel that it is important to discuss
frequency/mode issues for 630 = meter at=20 the the forthcoming Vienna
meeting in April because of the long = lead times=20 (years) required for
gaining approval to new = plans.

Whichever way we=20 feel about a bandplan for 630 meter, it is important to
inform our=20 representatives about this before the issue is discussed at
the = meeting in=20 Vienna.

73 de Robert, LA4ANA

--- In rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk, "Anton (Toni)"=20 wrote:
>
> NRRL is proposing a band plan for 630m
> = What do=20 you think about it?
> 73 de Toni, HB9ASB
>
>=20 Recommendation
> From the viewpoints of NRRL we would (at the = time=20 being) like to
present the
> following proposal for a 630 m = IARU=20 Region 1 bandplan:
> 472 - 479 kHz (630 m)
> 472 - 475 kHz = CW only=20 =96 maximum bandwidth 200 Hz
> 472.000 - 472.150 CW Beacons only = (IARU=20 coordinated)
> 472.150 - 472.300 CW QRSS
> 472.600 CW DX=20 Calling
> 474.750 CW Calling
> 475 - 479 kHz CW + = digimodes =96=20 maximum bandwidth 500 Hz
> Contests should be discouraged in = this very=20 narrow 630 m band where
radio
> amateurs are secondary = users.
>=20 Comment:
> NRRL feels that it will be premature to further = subdivide=20 different
digimodes. This
> may be better to do at the next=20 conference, if necessary, after
considering
>=20 experiences.
>

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web = post |=20 Start a new topic
Messages in this topic (8)
Recent=20 Activity:=20 New Members 3
Visit Your Group
 =20
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest =95 Unsubscribe =95 Terms of=20 Use
.
 
__,_._,___
------=_NextPart_000_009C_01CE07A9.9273E7A0--