Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp36254igc; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:33:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.206.9 with SMTP id lk9mr836201wjc.46.1390934010469; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:33:30 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ca19si4124541wib.77.2014.01.28.10.33.29 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1W8D0b-0001io-Dz for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:03:37 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1W8D0a-0001if-F4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:03:36 +0000 Received: from nm7-vm2.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com ([212.82.96.127]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1W8D0W-00058V-20 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:03:35 +0000 Received: from [212.82.98.48] by nm7.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2014 18:03:31 -0000 Received: from [46.228.39.104] by tm1.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2014 18:03:31 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp141.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2014 18:03:30 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 991497.84566.bm@smtp141.mail.ir2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: YonDO_gVM1nUhRSQDMyOxxzkeKOyEVXLCY203Cq4ebbCY0B U3.3VLa2vdlN9E9tqvNCLhl2eJcjCyfL28OVGwHBj5asfxUAJvJf3xILoxU6 8OJuHPub4g5DcPHEVBLeGDLm2HGHXe2fQzBgQ6NmDiA21ZU0qSHPnifMdMbO WEgx.PExcAgrOO8Mlm9fYGgSoWIItHc68BCoub9mn5Q4YFho.3A9TxyFuLN1 z9mor5KOs1FX8Kt4O2ZuW6mXfEwXmXDvsirsoHOGC3wNNZA470coDTvXpJ0m gBf4SdrupVeQIhkGTlBhMukBlpsglH8dfiW4WkNHX_69XjjG_2KFniRiPwIl cCJhPN.SOEpXI3feY_h0iPWHJjbbsz4UD6XutXYxXiDTDd95RgCGmf9aJHHb BCFVke7vYW8R7WFhkEHQk.RVSn5CdWN7NtLuM2rprZVLPCp.0vmIJRqY5K5n nLs36Q7OVDolQns__86ScNDQh_mnu3qNamgTEpha8tGE9Xri2TXAAZd8mLbf Y_O6a8GGkKuL1nGHk4rTPh7zt7s5vKEme.3cBrawdcUCh0MKkJfZljDaBHM4 SCEdhRlvxsOlQNFktDQsNgqaHyfnKPZjCajpEn4qYiNCpwvTCnNCNqaFitk2 r38DXzmfM.kHDlrh6y5EEshrodSCj9K8yr9pSA.SPsGK6_0Q.B3fewWlclLM RBqHniEe4rZiPH5mqsbzYLSs4meOMAStiDJtC X-Yahoo-SMTP: j_3SYsmswBC2aNV_OIrcnikG.xLMmVTqADJjU_0.aphs7U0_qeEUQejE0GGg X-Rocket-Received: from INTELP4 (GW0EZY@86.138.156.72 with plain [188.125.68.58]) by smtp141.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2014 18:03:30 +0000 UTC From: "Terry GW0EZY" To: References: <52E7C438.7050205@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <52E7C438.7050205@psk31.plus.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:03:28 -0000 Message-ID: <00de01cf1c53$400cfcd0$c026f670$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac8cONVWgfhRf693Rg2//tOoZa67jAACuRCw Content-Language: en-gb 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: Hi Roger and Eddie The only "safe" interpretation is to ask OFCOM. If enough people ask perhaps they'll include it in the licensing FAQs. There is quite a bit of info on the Ofcom and UKGov web sites: [...] 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 [212.82.96.127 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: a7057be409d35b5f2297c3c8c9fbcb9e Subject: RE: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CF1C53.400CFCD0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CF1C53.400CFCD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Roger and Eddie The only "safe" interpretation is to ask OFCOM. If enough people ask perhaps they'll include it in the licensing FAQs. There is quite a bit of info on the Ofcom and UKGov web sites: Have a look at the UK Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (download as PDF or HTML search): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/contents I'm sure you can read through this as a lawyer and prove anything you like (as per warning by Alan G3NYK) but I am just picking out what I think are the key phrases: The published UKFAT is only an info document its purpose according to UK WT Act is to set out: (a)in relation to the United Kingdom, the frequencies that- (i)have been allocated for particular wireless telegraphy purposes, and (ii)are available for assignment; and (b)the purposes for which the different frequencies have been allocated. Chapter 1 Section 8 says it is unlawful to establish a Wireless Telegraphy Station or install WT apparatus etc etc without a licence (no mention of frequency limits here) Part 6 section 116 provides a definition of WT: ""...wireless telegraphy" means the emitting or receiving, over paths that are not provided by any material substance constructed or arranged for the purpose, of energy..."" And: ".applies to electromagnetic energy of a frequency not exceeding 3,000 gigahertz.." Note - an upper but no lower frequency limit. The UK Peace Time Frequency Allocation Table aligns with the ITU Radio Regulations (2012 edition) which also states "Not Allocated" below 8.3 kHz. There are two footnotes: 5.53 Administrations authorizing the use of frequencies below 8.3 kHz shall ensure that no harmful interference is caused to services to which the bands above 8.3 kHz are allocated. (WRC-12) 5.54 Administrations conducting scientific research using frequencies below 8.3 kHz are urged to advise other administrations that may be concerned in order that such research may be afforded all practicable protection from harmful interference. (WRC-12) Before WRC12 the limit was 9 kHz but new lightning detection systems (Met Aids service) operate 8.3 - 11.3 kHz. For obvious reasons, you will find the same ITU alignment and "Not Allocated" phrase in National Frequency Tables of any country (those that are published). A few have yet to update to 8.3 kHz to take account of the WRC12 changes. Also in the CEPT Common European Allocation Table. All countries in the ITU (who have ratified the Final Acts of WRC12) are obliged to ensure any station on their territory meets the conditions in the two footnotes -perhaps by some form of authorization procedure that vets the station technical conditions. For Ofcom, as there is no commercial interest (at present) below 8.3 kHz, so there are no "Licence Products" available for frequencies below 9 kHz see: the UK Plan for Frequency Authorisation (an interactive page that lets you search for the authorization method for any frequency band): http://spectruminfo.ofcom.org.uk/spectrumInfo/ukpfa Equally there seems to be no UK military interest, so there is no point Ofcom showing any allocation or use below 8.3 kHz in the UK table at this time. I'm sure if some commercial application came along that promised big licence revenue or auction fees or even a licence exempt product that would benefit the UK economy, the situation would change rapidly. Probably the same with a new military application but seems unlikely with the defence cuts. I'm also sure you could get away with transmitting (or receiving see 6-16 above!) without anyone noticing, especially if you believe your activity doesn't fall in the definition of WT or you don't cause "undue" interference (e.g. no free radiating antenna) - but you never know who reads the mails on the reflectors and activity reports in Radcom etc.!!! Do you want to be looking over your shoulder when transmitting? The safest is to request an experimental NoV, especially if you want to publicise your activity/achievements - but it will take time as Ofcom have to send the request round all the government spectrum stakeholders MoD, GCHQ, NATS, CAA etc to see if there are any objections. I doubt it would be considered high priority. For example MoD are probably too busy preparing to auction chunks of 2.3 and 3.4 GHz. 73 Terry GW0EZY From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of g3zjo Sent: 28 January 2014 14:53 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations Hi Roger On 28/01/2014 14:06, Roger Lapthorn wrote: Quoting from the entry in the published UK frequency allocations table: "Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom" In the UK I take this to mean ANYONE can operate below 8.3kHz without licence or NoV permits being needed, assuming no interference to services above 8.3kHz. Its odd isn't it, a case of how you read it. There have been thoughts stated elsewhere recently, personally I don't think it means. Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom, so it is a free for all. It could be. Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom, and so are not protected from interference. Or Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom and never will be. Or Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom and must be kept clear at all times. Or Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom as they are receive only and used for research. More words are needed for clarity, maybe its not specified in order to do keep control of what goes on there, the total opposite of a free for all. 73 Eddie ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CF1C53.400CFCD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Roger and Eddie

 

The only “safe” interpretation is to ask OFCOM. If enough = people ask perhaps they’ll include it in the licensing FAQs. There = is quite a bit of info on the Ofcom and UKGov web sites: =

 

Have a look at the UK Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (download as PDF = or HTML search):

 

http://www.= legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/contents

 

I’m sure you can read through this as a lawyer and prove = anything you like (as per warning by Alan G3NYK) but I am just picking = out what I think are the key phrases:

 

The published UKFAT is only an info document its purpose according to = UK WT Act is to set out:

 

(a)in relation to the United Kingdom, the frequencies = that—

 

(i)have been allocated for particular wireless telegraphy purposes, = and

 

(ii)are available for assignment; and

 

(b)the purposes for which the different frequencies have been = allocated.

 

 

Chapter 1 Section 8 says it is unlawful to establish a Wireless = Telegraphy Station or install WT apparatus etc etc without a licence (no = mention of frequency limits here)

 

Part 6 section 116 provides a definition of = WT:

 

““…..wireless telegraphy” means the emitting = or receiving, over paths that are not provided by any material substance = constructed or arranged for the purpose, of = energy…….””

 

And:

 

“…applies to electromagnetic energy of a frequency not = exceeding 3,000 gigahertz….” Note – an upper but no = lower frequency limit.

 

The UK Peace Time Frequency Allocation Table aligns with the ITU = Radio Regulations (2012 edition) which also states “Not = Allocated” below 8.3 kHz. There are two = footnotes:

 

5.53 Administrations authorizing the use of frequencies below 8.3 kHz = shall ensure that no harmful

interference is caused to services to which the bands above 8.3 kHz = are allocated. (WRC-12)

5.54 Administrations conducting scientific research using frequencies = below 8.3 kHz are urged to advise other

administrations that may be concerned in order that such research may = be afforded all practicable protection from

harmful interference. (WRC-12)

 

Before WRC12 the limit was 9 kHz but new lightning detection systems = (Met Aids service) operate 8.3 – 11.3 kHz.

 

For obvious reasons, you will find the same ITU alignment and = “Not Allocated” phrase in National Frequency Tables of any = country (those that are published). A few have yet to update to 8.3 kHz = to take account of the WRC12 changes. Also in the CEPT Common European = Allocation Table.

 

All countries in the ITU (who have ratified the Final Acts of WRC12) = are obliged to ensure any station on their territory meets the = conditions in the two footnotes –perhaps by some form of = authorization procedure that vets the station technical = conditions.

 

For Ofcom, as there is no commercial interest (at present) below 8.3 = kHz, so there are no “Licence Products” available for = frequencies below 9 kHz see: the UK Plan for Frequency Authorisation (an = interactive page that lets you search for the authorization method for = any frequency band):

 

http://spect= ruminfo.ofcom.org.uk/spectrumInfo/ukpfa

 

Equally there seems to be no UK military interest, so there is no = point Ofcom showing any allocation or use below 8.3 kHz in the UK table = at this time.

 

I’m sure if some commercial application came along that = promised big licence revenue or auction fees or even a licence exempt = product that would benefit the UK economy, the situation would change = rapidly.  Probably the same with a new military application but = seems unlikely with the defence cuts.

 

I’m also sure you could get away with transmitting (or = receiving see 6-16 above!) without anyone noticing, especially if you = believe your activity doesn’t fall in the definition of WT  = or you don’t cause “undue” interference (e.g. no free = radiating antenna) – but you never know who reads the mails on the = reflectors and activity reports in Radcom etc…!!! Do you want to = be looking over your shoulder when transmitting?

 

The safest is to request an experimental NoV, especially if you want = to publicise your activity/achievements – but it will take time as = Ofcom have to send the request round all the government spectrum = stakeholders MoD, GCHQ, NATS, CAA etc to see if there are any = objections. I doubt it would be considered high priority. For example = MoD are probably too busy preparing to auction chunks of 2.3 and 3.4 = GHz…

 

73 Terry GW0EZY

 

 

 

 

 

From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@bl= acksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_g= roup@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of g3zjo
Sent: 28 = January 2014 14:53
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
Subject: Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency = allocations

 

Hi = Roger

On 28/01/2014 14:06, Roger Lapthorn wrote: =


Quoting from the entry in the published = UK frequency allocations table:

"Bands = below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United =

Kingdom"

 

In the UK I take this to mean ANYONE can = operate below 8.3kHz without licence or NoV permits being needed, = assuming no interference to services above = 8.3kHz.

Its odd isn't it, a case of how you read = it. There have been thoughts stated elsewhere recently,  personally = I don't think it means.
Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within = the United Kingdom, so it is a free for all.

It could = be.
Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom, = and so are not protected from interference.
Or
Bands below 8.3 kHz = are not allocated within the United Kingdom and never will = be.
Or
Bands below 8.3 kHz are not allocated within the United = Kingdom and must be kept clear at all times.
Or
Bands below 8.3 = kHz are not allocated within the United Kingdom as they are receive only = and used for research.

More words are needed for clarity, maybe = its not specified in order to do keep control of what goes on there, the = total opposite of a free for all.

73 = Eddie

------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CF1C53.400CFCD0--