Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp359848igc; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:24:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.22.129 with SMTP id d1mr27349437wjf.22.1392128651656; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:24:11 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dr11si9379056wid.3.2014.02.11.06.24.11 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:24:11 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WDE27-0008OX-AH for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:09:55 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WDE26-0008OO-NT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:09:54 +0000 Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1WDE23-0003ZW-RV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:09:53 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q59so5565516wes.37 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:09:51 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=ANKKK5aNKxgwj3C25zAiNJ6NElBHicTEaeYg32pD6Ys=; b=s2diensTFt0pT4gOw274hM22Is5nXTE8cVT9Ski38Lla7/a7wjhOB9WUwLikUDu68n ysXh88qe+0aJcHkYdHIOtnjqa4++vjZDjfYRqr/b57tjw+AyBy1tDv/fhn+RC4BnvrIi qOhWKWbBQTPF630xxteG2YeT6WRqi5+olYjJSLD6/xbc7J92mauHPZfTNySva6HbKwvJ evdApHHVY7j2qq2Ntq3xF/8Ap0Bg1wE7VZRIybZz+x3Hk2oLUAI8BaGDbOBnxomm9CxN iGeBoOtkvHKsXOPRezGuAFRCgvzxQfrQar4qegj6t1ltjb+FleqelowuczkHPfjUwgBM nOqg== X-Received: by 10.180.7.130 with SMTP id j2mr15115376wia.25.1392127790963; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:09:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.2] ([217.67.155.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm44538663wjr.22.2014.02.11.06.09.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:09:50 -0800 (PST) From: John Rabson Message-Id: <770BF282-A608-4681-B003-EF0C9C8FB510@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:09:46 +0100 References: To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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: My understanding is that, when dealing with Ofcom’s predecessors, the RSGB sometimes found it useful not to ask outright for a specific facility, but rather to say “If we were to ask you a question along the following lines …... what might your answer be?”. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [74.125.82.178 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (john.rabson07[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (john.rabson07[at]gmail.com) 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 85c54099682e8e65d9e25bf804a68673 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_69383C41-7013-43D3-A61F-065126EDA9C0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: Questions about 73kHz and sub 8.3kHz X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 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 --Apple-Mail=_69383C41-7013-43D3-A61F-065126EDA9C0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 My understanding is that, when dealing with Ofcom=92s predecessors, the = RSGB sometimes found it useful not to ask outright for a specific = facility, but rather to say =93If we were to ask you a question along = the following lines =85... what might your answer be?=94.=20 This allowed the licensing authority to comment without having to say = Yes or No. What they sometimes did was to say =93We would not be able to = give you that, but if you were to ask for this ...=85 we might be able = to do something for you=94. Certainly, as has been pointed out in this and related conversations, = there are some questions which the authorities would rather we did not = ask =96 so long as we do not cause them difficulties. John F5VLF/G3PAI On 11 Feb 2014, at 14:49CET, Warren Ziegler wrote: > Roger, > I am not sure of the relationship U.K. amateurs have with OFCOM, = but I found that here in the U.S. it is better NOT to ask. If you ask a = bureaucrat they will naturally fall into CYA mode and give you the most = restrictive and conservative interpretation of the rules. Remember, it = is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission! >=20 > 73 Warren >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Roger Lapthorn = wrote: > Still awaiting OFCOM responses after about 8 working days since first = email sent. Will post reply here, assuming they ever manage one. I am = not hopeful. >=20 > 73s > Roger G3XBM >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Roger Lapthorn > Date: 10 February 2014 13:46 > Subject: Questions about 73kHz and sub 8.3kHz > To: licensingcentre@ofcom.org.uk >=20 >=20 > Early last week I emailed OFCOM but I have still not received = responses: >=20 > My questions were: >=20 > Am I correct in assuming that radio amateurs may legally experiment in = the old 73kHz band as long as output power is less than 72dBuA/m at 10m? = This is the limit for licence-exempt inductive devices. >=20 > Also, please can you confirm that no licence is needed to operate = below 8.3kHz (assuming no harmful interference to services above = 8.3kHz). This part of the spectrum is unallocated. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Roger Lapthorn >=20 > --=20 > 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 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > 73 Warren K2ORS > WD2XGJ=20 > WD2XSH/23 > WE2XEB/2 > WE2XGR/1 >=20 > =20 --Apple-Mail=_69383C41-7013-43D3-A61F-065126EDA9C0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS+i8qAAoJEKzwAOXC9Is48WYIAMPm5m2v8MBKuwqbrUwaw+AM juzT5/72fvqF8MyKwjUJTevghFj1/3cyxKnL1wxLbKHekyIpcyWOFb85G4T9M0gB ZMQQsbFXaJTcxA9BfRVqX/sWkbmPJy2ckDl4XPiaCRzba/pQfUezBnnIBA8q00sT 6HuSe8lXu5XKYe1R3WYVSyOgkKynmXZK4MzXCG1CgBoqngUKHhEVWlbA09hm4wrf DTOq99N0QougjLXb/4+upxJd1EjqY+3r+I21ggWFy4Pw3KCDJI3j1HQMSSrydEkJ 3niyVtzRfzIdrOfdZPaKF5NM2kL0rugqfe9yHq5oZPYrgHI4W0Z0oDJDENsK39s= =73Ti -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_69383C41-7013-43D3-A61F-065126EDA9C0--