Pat,
You do have to conform to the non-interference requirement.
John F5VLF
On 16 Feb 2012, at 13:32CET, pat wrote:
> OK, So does that mean it is fine to set up a station right on the mutual
> frontier of an adjoining country to one who disallows operation within
> their own frontiers? RF is funny stuff - it tends to leak through such
> barriers <:?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 23:14 +0000, GW0EZY (Terry) wrote:
>> Andy is absolutely right. Most of the countries that objected to this
>> allocation are the “usual suspects” often not permitting any amateur
>> radio and certainly objecting to any increase in allocations to the
>> amateur service as a matter of principle. A similar footnote in the
>> International Radio Regulations (agreed in 2007) exists for the 136
>> kHz band:
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.67 Additional allocation: in Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan,
>> the band 130-148.5 kHz is
>>
>> also allocated to the radionavigation service on a secondary basis.
>> Within and between these countries
>>
>> this service shall have an equal right to operate. (WRC-07)
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.67A Stations in the amateur service using frequencies in the band
>> 135.7-137.8 kHz shall not exceed a
>>
>> maximum radiated power of 1 W (e.i.r.p.) and shall not cause harmful
>> interference to stations of the
>>
>> radionavigation service operating in countries listed in No. 5.67.
>> (WRC-07)
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.67B The use of the band 135.7-137.8 kHz in Algeria, Egypt, Iran
>> (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Libyan
>>
>> Arab Jamahiriya, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic, Sudan and Tunisia is
>> limited to the fixed and maritime
>>
>> mobile services. The amateur service shall not be used in the
>> above-mentioned countries in the band
>>
>> 135.7-137.8 kHz, and this should be taken into account by the
>> countries authorizing such use. (WRC-07)
>>
>>
>>
>> It was extremely unusual and completely unnecessary to have such a
>> “non-allocation” footnote in the RR. These countries are unlikely to
>> have sufficient monitoring capability to prepare a detailed
>> interference submission to the ITU. Also, the relevant assignments
>> must be registered with the ITU to claim protection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Each Head of Delegation at a WRC signs the Final Acts but this is
>> simply an undertaking that there is no major reservation and the
>> country concerned “promises” not to do anything that would jeopardise
>> the operation of this International Treaty. However, each country is
>> supposed to formally ratify the Final Acts at some future date – in
>> some cases this can take forever as some countries simply do not have
>> the national legislation in place to achieve it. Even developed
>> countries take some time e.g. Australia ratified the WRC 2003 Final
>> Acts in 2006 – only a year before the next WRC!
>>
>>
>>
>> The CEPT (includes Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe including
>> Russia and CIS) makes joint proposals to each WRC. All EU countries
>> are supposed to formally support these positions. Non EU countries
>> usually do (e.g. Norway, Switzerland) but Russia and CIS usually also
>> make their own proposals which can oppose CEPT. There were 42 CEPT
>> countries supporting the CEPT proposal for this agenda item (only
>> Russia and some CIS did not). All EU countries supported. The CEPT
>> proposed 472-480 kHz at 5w e.i.r.p., so a result of 472-479 kHz was a
>> good compromise!
>>
>>
>>
>> Once the WRC has completed and Final Acts signed, the CEPT Electronics
>> Communication Committee (ECC) will incorporate the WRC results into
>> the current recommendations for European harmonised frequency use
>> which all EU countries normally adopt into their national frequency
>> allocation tables. This can take time! For UK amateurs, Ofcom is
>> rather busy organising the massive amount of frequency use associated
>> with the Olympic games in London this summer. We might have to wait.
>> Although I was pleasantly surprised to get my 5 MHz permit issued
>> within 5 days just after New Year 2012. The 5 MHz use is of course
>> also on a non-interference basis and has far more international
>> interference potential but seems to work without problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73 Terry
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> From:[email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Talbot
>> Sent: 15 February 2012 21:45
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: LF: Re: WRC-12 Approves the New 472-479 kHz Amateur Radio
>> Allocation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But what is interference?
>>
>>
>> If none is reported, none is caused.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And who is going to report interference to a service no one uses
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Andy
>>
>>
>> www.g4jnt.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 February 2012 21:40, Clemens Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I wonder what "secondary user on non-interference basis" means in
>> practice.
>> As we know most NDBs are AM modulated with about 1kHz.
>> Now it would be interesting to know what selectivity/bandwidth DF
>> receivers
>> for NDBs in aeroplanes might have.
>> Imagine they have 1kHz or even 2kHz (quite possible).
>> For non interfering such a receiver one would have to stay well
>> without that
>> BW.
>> Hence with a few NDBs spread between 422 and 479kHz there would
>> virtually remain no usable frequency for us amateurs if we wanted to
>> make
>> 100% sure not to interfere any aeroplanes' beacon reception.
>>
>> 73
>> Clemens
>> DL4RAJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK
>
>
>
|
