Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: Band Planning for 472 Khz Band ?

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: Band Planning for 472 Khz Band ?
From: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:32:30 -0000
Cc: "rsgb" <[email protected]>
References: <002901cd4b07$28b49530$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]

John
The RSGB and their representives do not have the fire power to convince others in EU that their way is best.
de MAL/VS6HI - Past President Hong Kong Amateur Radio Society. The same Office as the RSGB president.
Maybe I would have handled things different.
de G3KEV 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: Band Planning for 472 Khz Band ?

 

I'm busy on other matters this weekend and wasn't expecting to have to get into this detail yet as the resolution for amateurs to have the band doesn't strictly come into force until 1st Jan 2013.

The issue with NDBs is complex as some have noted.  Over several years a group of us worked with classaxe data and other more official sources.  Our best list of active NDBs is collated at http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/500khz/ndb.php, which was our working data during the preparatory stages for WRC-12.  It's quite possible that there could be some changes to this data as it hasn't been checked for several months.

We failed to gain even European agreement on our preferred band 493 - 505 kHz, and what we have is the common ground between the CITEL and CEPT preference.  At least we got something and at least for the UK and a number of other countries it should work out as more bandwidth than we have currently.

As is often the case we have a compromise solution that takes into account protection of NDB using frequency separation, distance and ERP. Some countries have already excluded themselves in the footnote to the allocation, and as the above website shows others will not be able to allow operating across the whole band because of NDBs in neighbouring countries.  In the UK we are fortunate along with the USA and Canada and a number of other countries that we should be allocated the whole band.  

As some have said the NDBs are being phased out, but at CEPT level we could not secure a timetable.  Meanwhile, I would suggest that we don't get too firm in our views at this stage of a band plan but me more flexible as in the early days of 136 kHz.
 
73 John, G3WKL

From: graham787 <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2012, 16:30
Subject: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: Band Planning for 472 Khz Band ?

 
Yes , But im sure we can engineer a way round it ..

Q what is the 'wording' of the data regulations ?

--- In [email protected], "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@...> wrote:
>
> Graham
> This particular piece of spectrum was NOT a good choice for radio amateur use. Like Tracy said the majority of the NDB'S are audible in the UK and some very loud during the dark hours.
> It is only really suitable for CW qso mode where the operator can dive in/out of vacant slots at the time.
> For Opera or other data modes it will be difficult where a SLOT has to be specified because there are quite dramatic propagation changes taking place especially in the dark hours and you could well end up on top of a NDB or several.
> The same applies on 160 metres where band condx change all the time, fortunately there are no NDB'S to contend with.
> It is not surprising commercial operators did not see this part of the spectrum as useful except all NDB'S QRT.
> NDB'S are still a useful nav aid for the Aeronautical service es others so I cannot see them switching off.
> G3KEV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: graham787
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 2:38 PM
> Subject: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: Band Planning for 472 Khz Band ?
>
>
>
> This is going to be a nightmare, more like a downhill slalom course than a band allocation
>
> Has anyone a graphic of the band and beacon allocations what shows where the gaps are ?
>
> G..
>
> --- In [email protected], "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@> wrote:
> >
> > Guard bands for all 27 listed NDBs would present a problem as the MCW
> > receivers would be at least 2.5kHz wide. Fortunately, any
> > interference from amateurs is likely to be extremely local. Our small
> > signal working is likely to suffer more QRM =from= the NDBs than to
> > them.
> >
> > Mike, G3XDV
> > ==========
> >
> > > Twenty-seven NDBs have been logged in Europe between 472-479kHz.
> > > Twelve of those have been logged from the UK.
> > > The NDB database on the Classaxe web site would provide detailed
> > > information on frequencies which should be avoided. It should be borne
> > > in mind that the NDBs use A2 mode with a mix of approx 400Hz and
> > > 1020Hz modulation, so there are a good number of specific slots to be
> > > wary of.
> > >
> > > http://www.classaxe.com/dx/ndb/reu/
> > >
> > > Perhaps some consideration should be given to setting up some form of
> > > guard bands/frequencies in order to avoid any problems with NDBs?
> > >
> > > 73s Tracey G5VU
> >
>



__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>