Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DD9F13800014E; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1U4YXx-0006MQ-Rf for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:10:25 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1U4YXx-0006MH-4D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:10:25 +0000 Received: from rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.129] helo=cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1U4YXt-0006pY-BC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:10:24 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 202B2138098.A4F61 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-2e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.34]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202B2138098; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:09:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB1.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub1.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186B720041; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:09:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::312b:f3bc:9c4:4ebb]) by ICTS-S-HUB1.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::f5f7:d8cc:bee0:28d3%26]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:09:57 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk" , "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan Thread-Index: AQHOB5lNA3JXfpjhPUyLtzL5x2knGphzLnuc Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:09:56 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6FE2E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.112.13.13] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 134.58.240.129 (rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) used invalid HELO/EHLO cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be - verification failed 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: 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. [...] 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 [134.58.240.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 0a6a718c6fdbae2c30b178e413f97622 Subject: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6FE2EICTSSMBX5lunaku_" 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: 3039ac1dc1475117b8ad755f X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6FE2EICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 th= is proposal, preferably based on a position supported by the majority of th= e 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 NRR= L, but a recommendation with a list of centre of activity frequencies for t= he different modes could be useful. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________ Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] name= ns 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 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 Messages in this topic (8) Recent Activity: * New Members 3 Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest = =95 Unsubscribe =95 Terms of Use . __,_._,___ --_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6FE2EICTSSMBX5lunaku_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robert, Toni, all,

 

the urge to regulate seems=  stronger that the need to liste= n to opinions of the band users ;-)

I will advice the UBA HF manager how to respond (and eventually vote) on this proposal, pr= eferably based on a position&nbs= p;supported by the majority of the actual band users.

I hope other can do so<= /a> 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> a recommendation with a list of centre<= /a> 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
 


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.
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.
 
__,_._,___
--_000_7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB6FE2EICTSSMBX5lunaku_--