Yes i am 110% agree , and some people are extremely keen on regulating
other people's behavior. LF/MF people are perfectly capable to take care
of the band. The gentleman's agreement is working absolutely fine.
LA5VNA Steinar
loc:JO59jq
Den 09.05.2013 12:44, skrev M0FMT:
> Hi all
>
> It has been said before that to salami slice such a small allocation as the
> MF/LF bands is nonsenses.
>
> In any case how many of the "Slicers" use these frequencies? As usual it is
> those who feel they have the right, will thus be giving the band "Policemen"
> a mission.
>
> Why is it not possible to have these bands organised by the actual users on a
> consensual basis rather than have it cast in "stone"?
>
> Alterations in QRG usage would then be organic and by popular demand and meet
> the needs of developing modes and operating practise. It will be messy but I
> think it's called Democracy which seems to be slipping through the fingers of
> the regular MF/LF users. After all we do have a forum to air these issues..
> 73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Steinar Aanesland <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]; "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 11:03
>> Subject: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band
>>
>>
>> This has not been discussed in the Norwegian ham community, and because
>> of LA4LN's solo act, I am not a member of NRRL any more.
>>
>> LA5VNA Steinar
>> loc:JO59jq
>>
>>
>> Den 09.05.2013 10:36, skrev Rik Strobbe:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> those active on 630m might be interested in the outcome of the discussion
>>> of paper C4_06 (Bandplan for the 630 m band proposed by NRRL) at the
>>> Committee C4 (HF Matters) Interim Meeting (20-21 April 2013, Vienna):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.5 Paper C4_06 was presented by LA4LN
>>> RSGB stated that they support the principle of a band plan, but that it is
>>> too early to have a formal plan until the usage is better known.
>>> DARC stated that the usage of the band at the moment doesn’t really require
>>> a band plan.
>>> DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage" (see Annex 1).
>>> ZRS asked if the CW DX frequency could be moved a little higher up the band.
>>> DARC noted that there are still 4 NDBs in the band. They also asked if the
>>> QRSS CW segment could be moved out of the CW part of the band as it is
>>> decoded as a digimode. DARC also said there is currently no need for a
>>> coordinated beacon segment as we can use the existing NDBs.
>>> OeVSV said we should observe the band usage for a while before deciding on
>>> a fixed band plan and suggested that centres of activity could be used also.
>>> UBA stated it is too early to propose a band plan.
>>> It was agreed to show current plan as proposed usage and to review at the
>>> next general conference.
>>> CRC stated that we should not show a plan as the current users would not
>>> appreciate being told how to use the band.
>>> The meeting agreed to change the wording to a ‘proposed usage’ plan and
>>> that frequencies should be referred to as centre of activities.
>>> DARC introduced a plan "proposed usage".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [cid:2bd9b952-2278-4148-b306-9c41271fd880]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
