LF: Re: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan

["mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>]

But the same thing has been happening on here for years. Those shouting most and _expression_ opinions about LF and MF are never heard on the bands. They are very verbal on the reflector but absent on both LF and MF when it comes to generating signals or engaging in QSO activity.

There are a few of us active daily around EU working on CW,  the other few are machine minders generating repeative Unattended  BEACONS on Data and getting reports via Internet database. These Beacon bashers are unaware what is happening on adjacent frequencies since the only criteria is DIAL FREQUENCY which never changes and these absent operators are not in a position to express an opinion about Band Planning for other modes like CW or QRSS

As far as I am concerned there is already a BAND PLAN in operation by the Data operators specifying a DIAL FREQUENCY for their modes WSPR and OPERA for example. CW Operators do not need a band plan because the mode is easily recognized and can fit into any available space on any band. Find a clear frequency call CQ or net onto someone else, make a call and have a QSO

Some sort of band plan might be desireable for Appliance Operators so they can start an orchestral concert on a given frequencies

and get the time SYNC right for the Violins

g3kev

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rik Strobbe

To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk ; rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:09 PM

Subject: LF: RE: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan

Robert, Toni, all,

 

the urge to regulate seems stronger that the need to listen to opinions of the band users ;-)

I will advice the UBA HF manager how to respond (and eventually vote) on this proposal, preferably based on a position supported by the majority of the actual band users.

I hope other can do so within their society.

 

To get the discussion started, my (personal) opinion:

At this moment it is far too early for a rigid band plan as proposed by NRRL, but a recommendation with a list of centre of activity frequencies for the different modes could be useful.

 

73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T

 

---

Van: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk [rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk] namens robert_la4ana [la4ana73@yahoo.com]
Verzonden: zondag 10 februari 2013 15:16
To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
Onderwerp: [rsgb_lf_group] Re: NRRL Proposal for a 630m Band Plan

 

Hi Toni and LF/MF Group,

As promised, I have been in contact with the NRRL representative
responsible for initiating this proposal, our HF Manager LA4LN. I
communicated to him the general opinion of the MF community about the
proposed band plan, indicating that it is too early for rulemaking. In
addition, I said that such a proposal should be discussed with the users
(in this case just a handfull in Norway) before any suggestions for
rulemaking are forwarded to the IARU.

The NRRL HF Manager responded by saying that this proposal was
coordinated with IARU Region 1 HF Chairman DK4VW, who welcomed such a
proposal. Both officials feel that it is important to discuss
frequency/mode issues for 630 meter at the the forthcoming Vienna
meeting in April because of the long lead times (years) required for
gaining approval to new plans.

Whichever way we feel about a bandplan for 630 meter, it is important to
inform our representatives about this before the issue is discussed at
the meeting in Vienna.

73 de Robert, LA4ANA

--- In rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk, "Anton (Toni)" wrote:
>
> NRRL is proposing a band plan for 630m
> What do you think about it?
> 73 de Toni, HB9ASB
>
> Recommendation
> From the viewpoints of NRRL we would (at the time being) like to
present the
> following proposal for a 630 m IARU Region 1 bandplan:
> 472 - 479 kHz (630 m)
> 472 - 475 kHz CW only – maximum bandwidth 200 Hz
> 472.000 - 472.150 CW Beacons only (IARU coordinated)
> 472.150 - 472.300 CW QRSS
> 472.600 CW DX Calling
> 474.750 CW Calling
> 475 - 479 kHz CW + digimodes – maximum bandwidth 500 Hz
> Contests should be discouraged in this very narrow 630 m band where
radio
> amateurs are secondary users.
> Comment:
> NRRL feels that it will be premature to further subdivide different
digimodes. This
> may be better to do at the next conference, if necessary, after
considering
> experiences.
>

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a new topic

Messages in this topic (8)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 3

Visit Your Group

 

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

 

__,_._,___