There are several issues here:

(1) We have a very narrow band, which exhibits much stronger local 
and DX signals than the 136kHz band did. Therefore, there should be a 
combination of self discipline and planning.

(2) It makes sense to have at least an idea of where particular modes 
can be found. If a signal other than 'normal' CW is heard, it should 
be obvious (from its approximate frequency) what type of software to 
use to decode it.

(3) We have quite an organised community in this and the Yahoo 
groups, so changes to any centre of activity can easily be discussed 
and propagated. 

On a personal note, I think QRSS works better than many modes very 
close to a band edge because of its tiny bandwidth and need for very 
accurate tuning. And just as annoying as QRSS in the middle of the 
band are CW QSOs taking place very close to datacomms activity.

Mike, G3XDV
(temporarily QRT on transmit but monitoring - see 
http://g3xdv.blogspot.com )


> Just tell me where to operate CW, QRSS, WSPR and JT9 etc and I will
> willingly follow any gentleman's agreement or more formal plan.
> 
> Personally I think a "light touch" outline bandplan IS now needed. No
> rules, just a sensible way of organising that will maximise everyone's
> enjoyment of their chosen modes with minimal interference to other
> amateurs and to NDBs. People do not have to rigidly follow it, but it
> would benefit all if we did.
> 
> 73s
> Roger G3XBM
> 
> 
> On 5 January 2013 14:04, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > **
> > Who started the trend to have QRSS in the middle of the 'new' band?
> > There are two extremely strong signals there now as I write this. I
> > would have thought any mode that requires long plain carriers would
> > be better suited to near the band edges. Three German operators
> > suggested a band plan during late September, in which QRSS was near
> > the bottom of the band. As far as I remember this plan was met with
> > some hostility. It has been suggested that people will not stick to
> > a band plan. I find this hard to believe, particularly in respect of
> > QRSS, if they want their signals to be found. Another problem I
> > would suggest, is just how many know how to measure/calculate their
> > EIRP? I have noticed several contributors to this reflector refer to
> > ERP. Food for thought? Vy 73, Chris, G4AYT.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
> http://www.g3xbm.co.uk
> https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/
> http://qss2.blogspot.com/
>