Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: John Rabson <john.rabson07@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:07:14 +0100
Message-Id: <4D03268F-0324-4779-BCA4-6E189192C41C@gmail.com>
References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E1924@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016)
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: O

Why do we need a band plan for 472 kHz? It seems to me that the band plan is useful when there are a lot of users, so that people can readily find a particular mode they are interested in (and avoid others), and to keep incompatible modes separated.

This band is not intensively used by large numbers of people.

There are also geographical and power constraints. Even within a given country or region there may be some parts of the band that cannot or should not be used. Overall, I think it is better to rely on cooperation between active users and, where appropriate, agree on centres of activity.

One problem with formal band plans is that some administrations may feel the need to incorporate these into their licence regulations. Given the rapid development of novel digital transmission systems on this band, formalising the allocation of frequencies within the band would work to our disadvantage.

John  F5VLF

> On 21 Mar 2016, at 10:48, Rik Strobbe <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna, 16-17 April 2016) there is a proposal thatconcerns the 630 m band:
>  
> It is recommended that beacons will be accepted in the plan of usage of the 472 - 479 kHz band (630 m) in addition to the Recommendation VA14_C4_REC_02:  476 - 477 kHz beacons – maximum bandwidth 200 Hz.  Maximum power output 1 W EIRP.  Beacon proposals should adhere to beacon recommendations in the IARU Region1 HF Managers' Handbook, and should be approved by the IARU Region1 Beacon Coordinator (introduced by NRRL)
>  
> Besides the fact that I am not a fan of the urge to put everything into strict rules and I have doubts about the usefulness of beacons (there are dozens of NDB's in and near the 630 m band), I do fear that an "official" beacon band might attract people or clubs to put up a nice "techproject" and leave us with the QRM.
> The targeted range (476-477 kHz) is de facto used for QRSS, a some"wideband" CW beacons can cause a lot of harm.
>  
> I wonder if NRRL consulted the few Norwegian hams that are active on 630 m and if otherin societies the band users were asked for advice?
>  
> 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
>  

john.rabson07@gmail.com

Researching history of RABSON, BLACKSHAW, GAUNTLETT, VERLANDER and ROBSONNE