Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band

["Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>]

I like this bit and the  one about qrss  being a  data  mode })

 

''DARC also said there is currently no need for a coordinated beacon segment as we can use the existing NDBs.'' 

 

And exactly how  do  'we decode  these existing  beacons at levels  under the  noise and  produce meaningful  s/n levels at  dx  range ? and intercept  the  occasional flash  dx  ,

 

incidentally ,has anyone  noticed  beacons  are becoming  bandwidth hungry , with  more  spectrum  being allocated  on the  vhf  bands ?

G..

 

From: M0FMT

Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:44 AM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Proposed usage for the MF band

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 <saanes@broadpark.no>
To: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk; "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
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
>