|
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..
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:44 AM
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
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
>
|
