Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id u2LCNW2p000651 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:23:32 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ahynq-0008Cw-Or for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:19:22 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ahynq-0008Cl-9H for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:19:22 +0000 Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from <9h9mhrlaw@gmail.com>) id 1ahyno-0007df-H9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:19:21 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id d205so137414920oia.0 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT) 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-transfer-encoding; bh=2OWjBllrlpTxMODgTZWmjDaz6QWgP19Ihc/yQLl5WnM=; b=cn7Vw7mS+iQsEwmjO9IkHSctXQDHC+Bwnjzcsdnk1yLsPNOaxTy02Gg+jCivPl3Hzb PIoqi/9fd1BGVbT52dojEvvEncvu71kvsgWB6mDgNd2uZ0wIdaYvRPjJH6Ibs2m3KnwF Ag3vPhJ7lBL/vSULzwNfTGGI3obWUeGNb3aSI34bM2LIN9hnoaMcYuoh08szYK8BO2Vy HwYx1u1JOTEczxj84DoRQC0DaSsXdEu2zinsn1FQnGFVALCuNg2FJan9D8VENsC2YH87 1j7/ARjOAdKirgTh1Yrzwx/1esde15hq1/kNw0tCssc8Z2/Jb0Z4GZDzvle1WgkRIiXL KyfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2OWjBllrlpTxMODgTZWmjDaz6QWgP19Ihc/yQLl5WnM=; b=fSWAD6GxV7g+daui8IBUyi/cO2N6RY/W1s9Duo5jNTmiBdjQtzWclBadXdXxpLM38J eHRzK01T+V7vYF3t22ULpQzj4j0wAi2GKOFMEAHnJoHOFTVFNZlk2iBE/LQ24kUFYH56 H0PJTaBV7k4t2iAinF9C/XEgZE9VRjGVn7eBICMyKdA52Ve0KMwydDzJYBxCo54cd0gs fECi85hxmDl98GClHjJx1aJGOjlTCpE3VALtQSEPeI1jD30EUKAlR2usfqUIVO+R4uFd GZjN5t62UuyStjSGFd2tVsP0t9nXk1nY9FNnJpZ2Z9/ogvLqFS64s2U93i7LWqkjCNvq 34sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLhZ2yluRMbflffScQaaxaoyEP30z510a4GPOkBy5v65rRE7HCZLjih1e/uQSUT2aXtpUJyJQbjbOuWTQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.95.68 with SMTP id t65mr15428123oib.7.1458562758939; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.7.103 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:19:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56EFE31E.7040603@posteo.de> References: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E1924@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A444E5E57@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> <56EFE31E.7040603@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:19:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: Lawrence Galea <9h9mhrlaw@gmail.com> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Scan-Signature: 33d261536bb1467bb13d5764461d5ec4 Subject: Re: LF: bandplan proposal at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna,16-17 April 2016) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by paranoid.lipkowski.org id u2LCNW2p000651 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7444 Agree to push power up Regards Lawrence On 3/21/16, DK7FC wrote: > ...instead of putting efforts in the definition of a band plan i suggest > they focus on working to push the power limit by 10 dB upwards! That > would be helpful. > I bet, no one of those who want to decide where which mode can be used > has ever been QRV, nor will ever! > > 73, Stefan > > Am 21.03.2016 10:48, schrieb Rik Strobbe: >> >> Dear all, >> >> at the next IARU Regon I Interim Meeting (Vienna, 16-17 April >> 2016) there is a proposal that concerns 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 Region 1 HF Managers' Handbook, and should be approved by >> the IARU Region 1 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 "tech project" >> 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 other in societies the band users were asked for advice? >> >> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T >> >