Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp42159igc; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:22:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.154.102 with SMTP id vn6mr4663035igb.15.1390940549476; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:22:29 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from ng11-ip5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (ng11-ip5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.215.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z7si22838729igw.31.2014.01.28.12.22.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: manual fallback record for domain of sentto-85080895-3601-1390940548-daveyxm=virginmedia.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com designates 98.138.215.202 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.215.202; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: manual fallback record for domain of sentto-85080895-3601-1390940548-daveyxm=virginmedia.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com designates 98.138.215.202 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sentto-85080895-3601-1390940548-daveyxm=virginmedia.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoogroups.co.uk; dmarc=fail (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.co.uk; s=oscaro; t=1390940548; bh=h9i44fLOQECQQLa9V+7Q/oYQ0arUXVA17DJNr6QK840=; h=Received:Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:To:X-Originating-IP:X-eGroups-Msg-Info:From:X-Yahoo-Profile:Sender:MIME-Version:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:List-Id:Precedence:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Content-Type; b=hK9vI3xR7AQGMc2248fRe1k72JRah+IpbSId00Sx90omqXs0TTuR3mADocRcGotKA9Tz3O+gMS63LtlAPKF2gjmDPTKh1LzDnbZAqIC3SIs76RPaf4ILfoXOSy9fPA7NgdGuu/15QTdCvYWleGjm3x5cSlkNYSTRHsaC8HMWLwo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=oscaro; d=yahoogroups.co.uk; b=sOQh77+gjiOc4w0+q8NfWDmzEuQ4haandSUMo1RkXywYOzrELgfSjds6wdnGVzJ5mXOrJWwFQobRKHoXZDPoW5xUwoHPoMwb/BFz0go27F2OuFS6/5gs/YJwjJ5CUcimRZoSlW+CBT8f5tyscNrBFXcdSOuAml0HQQ4/WBnUKn4=; Received: from [98.138.100.105] by ng11.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2014 20:22:28 -0000 Received: from [10.193.39.61] by tg101.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2014 20:22:28 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 85080895-m3601 X-Sender: rogerlapthorn@gmail.com X-Apparently-To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk X-Received: (qmail 58209 invoked by uid 102); 28 Jan 2014 20:22:27 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq6.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.37) by m12.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2014 20:22:27 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 26265 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2014 20:22:27 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mail-qa0-f43.google.com) (209.85.216.43) by mtaq6.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2014 20:22:27 -0000 X-Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id o15so1198396qap.16 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:22:27 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.37.146 with SMTP id r18mr5418402qgr.61.1390940547589; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:22:27 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.229.144.200 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:22:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <00de01cf1c53$400cfcd0$c026f670$@com> References: <52E7C438.7050205@psk31.plus.com> <00de01cf1c53$400cfcd0$c026f670$@com> Message-ID: To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" , rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk, "sub9khz@yahoogroups.com" X-Originating-IP: 10.193.84.37 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:4:8:0:2 From: Roger Lapthorn X-Yahoo-Profile: rlapthorn Sender: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk; contact rsgb_lf_group-owner@yahoogroups.co.uk Delivered-To: mailing list rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk List-Id: Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:22:27 +0000 Subject: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: LF: Below 8.3kHz in the UK freuency allocations Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-ff-m Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1628e3e2d1d04f10d956e" --001a11c1628e3e2d1d04f10d956e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 OFCOM told me (a year ago) they did not want to issue NoVs below (then) 8.1kHz. In as many words they also told me earth-mode was not licenceable. My feeling is we in the UK are OK (anyone) to TX (even radiated) below 8.3kHz without issues as long as no harmful interference is caused to services above 8.3kHz. My view/understanding, not the law. I am no lawyer. At 73 kHz the rules at very low ERPs appear ambiguous at best. At the low ERPs amateurs manage I cannot imagine real world issues! It is hard enough to see an amateur signal at VLF/LF in the first place. BTW, I have today sought clarification from OFCOM both on below 8.3kHz and on 73kHz. Let's see what they say. 73s Roger G3XBM On 28 January 2014 18:03, Terry GW0EZY wrote: > 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 > -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ http://qss2.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm --001a11c1628e3e2d1d04f10d956e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

OFCOM told me (a year ago) they did not want to issue NoVs below (then) 8.1kHz. In as many words they also told me earth-mode was not licenceable.  My feeling is we in the UK are OK (anyone) to TX (even radiated) below 8.3kHz without issues as long as no harmful interference is caused to services above 8.3kHz. My view/understanding, not the law. I am no lawyer.

At 73 kHz the rules at very low ERPs appear ambiguous at best. At the low ERPs amateurs manage I cannot imagine real world issues! It is hard enough to see an amateur signal at VLF/LF in the first place.

BTW, I have today sought clarification from OFCOM both on below 8.3kHz and on 73kHz. Let's see what they say.

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 28 January 2014 18:03, Terry GW0EZY <GW0EZY@sky.com> wrote:

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




--

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
--001a11c1628e3e2d1d04f10d956e--