Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp361760igc; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:53:11 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.14.94.135 with SMTP id n7mr44942492eef.40.1392130391145; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:53:11 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b7si32719167eez.29.2014.02.11.06.53.09 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:53:10 -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 1WDEL6-0008Vw-VN for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:29:32 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WDEL5-0008Vn-VG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:29:31 +0000 Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1WDEL2-0003fb-4k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:29:30 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f11so11671773qae.7 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:29:26 -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=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=bM2n6Fm5dDWPMvFxjZBXOQuQunP0f49jpx3POCD5qsM=; b=iVy0OTv2qysQfVv7HguYLThWJHPsq3koxj9w55HTPcm/+JS5hf0/AE65yS8W09qV5w nZEHLTJT2O1dx5D3sTRqMNJtsUGC+lnr9j0DWF/NVfxAr8ie0RRnJW6bSNOUOqY8Q8MR N9gh6/IpMPRyPpN1BAFCnO3NeYb2gAFyTIy6ox8NBkE050f/OLog9P+Lwnm6OEGvOz8r LQ2vrLW8Wq1z22TBLiGlie4w1L6Ucz/coiEMfXh+3q+ZiTXJqU16raGJpbWS8d+5VAnF HdDnt50ypMNiGFnCrIuOV4Kcj3Tq9Vq2dZ9mws0B0aGSxOySdEhgblDdCT6uhe+Ch3jM J7Mw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.91.12 with SMTP id y12mr53965288qgd.26.1392128965907; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:29:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.199.195 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:29:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <770BF282-A608-4681-B003-EF0C9C8FB510@gmail.com> References: <770BF282-A608-4681-B003-EF0C9C8FB510@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:29:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: Warren Ziegler To: rsgb_lf_group 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: John, Good background information. A few years ago someone on the U.S. longwave reflector decided that it was a good idea to pepper the FCC with very pointed and specific questions. I recall e-mailing Bill Ashlock (now s.k.) and saying something along the lines of "you can talk yourself out of all sorts of privileges", Bill printed that out and hung it on the wall of his radio shack! [...] 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 [209.85.216.48 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (wd2xgj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: fefa6d96b1284f767a869566d1bc7791 Subject: Re: LF: Fwd: Questions about 73kHz and sub 8.3kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113968ac7e9c6004f222484c 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_20_30,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 --001a113968ac7e9c6004f222484c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 John, Good background information. A few years ago someone on the U.S. longwave reflector decided that it was a good idea to pepper the FCC with very pointed and specific questions. I recall e-mailing Bill Ashlock (now s.k.) and saying something along the lines of "you can talk yourself out of all sorts of privileges", Bill printed that out and hung it on the wall of his radio shack! 73 Warren On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:09 AM, John Rabson wrote: > 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?". > > This allowed the licensing authority to comment without having to say Yes > or No. What they sometimes did was to say "We would not be able to give you > that, but if you were to ask for this ...... we might be able to do something > for you". > > Certainly, as has been pointed out in this and related conversations, > there are some questions which the authorities would rather we did not ask > - 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! > > > > 73 Warren > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 73s > > Roger G3XBM > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Roger Lapthorn > > Date: 10 February 2014 13:46 > > Subject: Questions about 73kHz and sub 8.3kHz > > To: licensingcentre@ofcom.org.uk > > > > > > Early last week I emailed OFCOM but I have still not received responses: > > > > My questions were: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Thanks > > > > Roger Lapthorn > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 73 Warren K2ORS > > WD2XGJ > > WD2XSH/23 > > WE2XEB/2 > > WE2XGR/1 > > > > > > -- 73 Warren K2ORS WD2XGJ WD2XSH/23 WE2XEB/2 WE2XGR/1 --001a113968ac7e9c6004f222484c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,

   Good background info= rmation.  
A few years ago someone on the U.S. longwave reflector decided that it was a good idea to pe= pper the FCC with very pointed and specific questions. I recall e-mailing B= ill Ashlock (now s.k.) and saying something a= long the lines of "you can talk yourself out of all sorts of privilege= s", Bill printed that out and hung it on the wall of his radio shack!<= /div>

73 Warren



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:09 AM,= John Rabson <john.rabson07@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding is that, when dealing with = Ofcom’s predecessors, the RSGB sometimes found it useful not to ask o= utright for a specific facility, but rather to say “If we were to ask= you a question along the following lines …... what might your answe= r be?”.

This allowed the licensing authority to comment without having to say Yes o= r No. What they sometimes did was to say “We would not be able to giv= e you that, but if you were to ask for this ...… we might be able to= do something for you”.

Certainly, as has been pointed out in this and related conversations, there= are some questions which the authorities would rather we did not ask &ndas= h; so long as we do not cause them difficulties.

John F5VLF/G3PAI

On 11 Feb 2014, at 14:49CET, Warren Ziegler <wd2xgj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Roger,
>      I am not sure of the relationship U.K. amateurs ha= ve with OFCOM, but I found that here in the U.S. it is better NOT to ask. I= f 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!
>
> 73 Warren
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com> 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.
>
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Roger Lapthorn <ro= gerlapthorn@gmail.com>
> Date: 10 February 2014 13:46
> Subject: Questions about 73kHz and sub 8.3kHz
> To: licensingcentre@of= com.org.uk
>
>
> Early last week I emailed OFCOM but I have still not received response= s:
>
> My questions were:
>
> 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? T= his is the limit for licence-exempt inductive devices.
>
> Also, please can you confirm that no licence is needed to operate belo= w 8.3kHz (assuming no harmful interference to services above 8.3kHz). This = part of the spectrum is unallocated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger Lapthorn
>
> --
> http://g3= xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
> http://www.g3xbm.= co.uk
> h= ttps://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
> http://qss2.bl= ogspot.com/
> http:/= /www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm
>
>
>
> --
> 73 Warren K2ORS
>                 WD2XGJ
>                 WD2XSH/23
>                 WE2XEB/2
>                 WE2XGR/1
>
>




--
= 73 Warren K2ORS
                = WD2XGJ
                WD2XSH/2= 3
                WE2XEB/2
&n= bsp;               WE2XGR/1

 = ;
--001a113968ac7e9c6004f222484c--