Hi Jim
As a member of RAC, I wonder where you get the authorization for making
a statement such as this:
'Regulatory Affairs wing of RAC, who are Industry Canada’s gatekeepers'???
RAC has no regulatory power nor formal stating with IC. They wish they
did, but they do not and as a member my vote is they should never have.
I would also like to make it clear that the Canadian Developmental
Service experiments are strictly that 'Developmental Service' and have
no legal ability to communicate with those in the amateur service. It
concerns me to see reports of undisciplined experimental operators
attempting or completely QSOs with stations in the amateur service in
EU. This was the main reason I opted out of the 600m experiment in the
first place.
Another reason I withdrew my application for experimentation on 600m was
this very attitude from RAC and its complete lack of willingness to
advocate for real amateur radio experiments. Instead they presented us
with watered down commercial developmental licenses advocated by those
with zero prior interest in LF and zero operating experience on LF. With
no ability to explore REAL communication with other amateurs world wide
and a complete lack of respect for and knowledge about the existing LF
experimenters group that exists in Canada I withdrew in disgust of the
entire situation as the egos in Ottawa and elsewhere have taken over...
If the chair or the band planning committee would have had any real
interest in LF then were where they years ago when REAL amateur LF
experiments where being conducted when we pleaded for others to get
involved?
Had you had a real interest you would have your answers already as the
systems have been developed and will simply sit idle at this station
until there is REAL amateur radio on 600m.
I certainly hope you don't entertain to start planning the future 2200m
band without consulting with the long term users here in Canada.
73 Scott
VE7TIL CN89dk
Jim and Hannelore Fisher wrote:
Congratulations on #1000, G3XIZ!
I chair the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) LF/MF/HF Band Planning
Committee, and several of us are interested in participating in the
recently-authorized experiments on 500 kHz. We are receiving active
support on this effort from the Regulatory Affairs wing of RAC, who
are Industry Canada’s gatekeepers. This period is preliminary to the
coming world meeting where this will be discussed. We hope to get
several stations transmitting 25% of the time and a lot more across
Canada receiving, so it should add to WSPR’s activity and spotting at
this frequency.
I’m not sure what you were saying about hand-sent CW vs. WSPR; I also
love CW but am amazed what WSPR can offer. Other authorized Canadian
participants in this program are already using CW, and most of my
100,000+ QSOs over 53+ years have been CW, but we are expecting our
little group to propose two frequencies (we must be specific) and use
503.9 WSPR beacon mode, break in using the WSJT WSPR mode, and QSY to
our “working frequency”, where we can use any mode within the 1 kHz
permissible bandwidth. Contenders for working frequency QSOs might
vary from some of the JT modes to OLIVIA to CW depending on what
signal levels we are experiencing with feasible antennas and our power
limitations. The purpose of all this will be able to understand
whether 600M can offer utility for ham radio-scale stations for
emergency, and how its usability varies with conditions including aurora.
Last night, using my 160M 1/2w sloper aimed at the Pacific Rim, I
spotted SM6BHZ over 40 times on 502.4+.
We are looking for info on successful approaches to generating WSPR
and other modes on 500 kHz. I’m presently thinking of a transverter
with my transceiver’s transverter output, but I’m open and others in
our group may want to try other approaches.
73,
Jim, VE1JF
|
