Go to page   <<        >>  

PROPOSED QSY OF IARU REGION-1 BEACONS

Author Post
Trev, EA5ISZ
Mon Sep 12 2011, 12:47PM
Trev, EA5ISZ

Registered Member #13
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 01:43PM

Posts: 143
Hi All, I thought it would be worthwhile to say a few words about the IARU R1 Bandplan and the UKSMG's input to it. This has been prompted by the resignation from UKSMG of two of our German members who feel that UKSMG should not be promoting the new plan.

It is important to understand that the 2012 plan was not generated by UKSMG or by the RSGB; it is the result of discussions between Region 1 nations prior to and at Sun City last month.

Most of you will know that the UKSMG input was prompted by the threat to the current beacon band and our wish to retain beacons at the low end of 6m. The proposals to move the beacons would also generate a need to re-organise the bandplan. UKSMG lobbied RSGB (as our only input to the Conference proceedings) with alternative proposals the key item being a retention of beacons at the low end of the band. Other countries, notably Germany via their national society DARC, were pressing for a wholesale move of all beacons above 50.3 and for the bottom 130kHz to be given over to CW operation only. Austria, through their society OEVSV, pressed for the use of 50.050 as the 'Telegraphy centre of DX activity' whilst acknowledging the current use of 50.090.

The UKSMG proposal provided for synchronised beacons in a 30kHz slot at the low end of the band and for the centre of activity to remain at 50.090. It also suggested frequencies for EME and data modes between 50.2 and 50.5.

The end result of the Sun City discussions can be seen in the new plan. I am grateful for the RSGB influence that has allowed a beacon band to remain at the low end although the momentum to move the majority of beacons up the band has meant many beacons will need to QSY in the next few years. The new beacon plan will take a good deal of organisation and persuasive argument between all three Regions if it is to become a success. It seems to me that UKSMG needs to be closely involved with this process and will need to form close links with those actively involved in providing the beacon service.

None of this will happen overnight; although the new plan is slated to become operational at the start of 2012 it is obvious to everyone that the changes will take several years to complete. Whilst some changes can be made effective immediately for example the centres of activity for data modes and EME, others such as the beacon moves cannot. Current operating practice for both CW and SSB happily still fit the terms of the new plan and I do not expect any major changes in our operating habits and procedures for some time yet. Hopefully by the time the plan is ready to be fully implemented, countries such as Germany through DARC will have been able to negotiate the release of the lower 80kHz of the band.

Whatever we think of the new plan, once it is introduced it will be in all of our interests to adhere to it.
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Tue Sep 13 2011, 12:08PM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
It is not fair to “blame “the UKSMG for the “new” band plan.
As pointed out by Trev, the people, who decided, for whatever reasons, to change, amend, or whatever you want to call it, are the representatives of the countries that sent representatives / sent input into the conference at Sun City. They took the decision on what to do – not UKSMG. There is no point in throwing toys out of the pram.
UKSMG did open a forum for debate on the subject – how many hams took part? Not many. More actually debated the issue on the chat pages.
How many hams actually gave input to their respective national association? Not many I wager.
The UKSMG has done what is part of its remit – to inform and educate and disseminate information.
Remember the UKSMG doesn’t have any powers. It ( and this is NOT a dig) doesn’t formally represent the Hams of EU etc – the National Societies of each respective country represent the views etc of the Hams of that country – so that is where the power lies.
I am sorry that some of our DL friends have to chosen to take the action they have – and for the reasons they have. The process is democratic – and as with all democratic processes some are better off, or worse off than others. If we take the view that we go our own way then anarchy rules.
Perhaps the DL’s should give a thought to the fact that they have beacons above 080 – contrary to the PRESENT band plan.
The UKSMG can only represent its member’s views through the RSGB – nothing more. It cannot be expected to deal with ALL the National societies - that is up to the local groups / Hams to do so.
It will be interesting to see what beacon keepers change qrg or take off their beacons until such time at the qrg can be agreed / changed. I don’t under estimate the problem that some will have – especially on remote islands etc ZD8, S9 – but hey if the band plan it to be implemented then it must do so in full – if not anarchy reigns, as seems to be starting – not good for anybody.
It is up to the Hams in all countries to negotiate, as Trev says, their access to the band – yes we are privileged in lots of EU countries to have access from 50.000 up – others must seek to gain the same privileges and not try and impose their will on the rest that have agreed a course of action.
Back to top
Bo, SM7FJE
Wed Sep 14 2011, 12:58PM
Bo, SM7FJE
Registered Member #77
Joined: Sat Mar 22 2008, 03:56PM

Posts: 5
For the first ½ MHz my ideal band plan looks like this:
50.000-020 EME
50.020-100 CW
50.100-350 CW+SSB
50.350-450 Digital
50.450-500 Qualified bcns
50.450-550 Vanity bcns
This also reflects the acual use of the band today.
50.050 and 50.200 could be used as new calling frequencies for CW respectively SSB.
It is better to make a drastic, but good, chance once. Messing around with something half old/half new will only prolong the pain.
Back to top
Christoph, DF9CY
Thu Sep 15 2011, 07:15AM
Christoph, DF9CY
Registered Member #65
Joined: Thu Mar 20 2008, 04:27PM

Posts: 31
DL: Two years ago I talked to an officer in the regulatory board (BNetzA Muelheim) and at the end we came to the 6m situation in DL. We had a very nice conversation about this. The outcome of this talk is for me: The main "problem" is the prime user of the 6m band here. They do not even allow beacons below 50.080; which is the reason for having all three DL beacons on 50.083 (which were planned for other frequencies of course). A row of attempts have been made to change the 6m situation in DL with the help of the regulatory board, but since 20 years 6m operation has not come far above a kind of "experimental stadium" here, as any improvement thought on had been blocked.
Back to top
Trev, EA5ISZ
Thu Sep 15 2011, 09:18AM
Trev, EA5ISZ

Registered Member #13
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 01:43PM

Posts: 143
Thanks for the comment Christoph; in view of that have you any idea why DARC pressed for a CW section from 50.000 to 50.130 ? I was hoping that they may believe that the lower 80kHz would be released in the near future.
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Thu Sep 15 2011, 11:08AM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
Thanks for the comments Christoph - but the present band plan (which has been in use for many years) calls for beacons to be between 50000 and 50080 - clearly 083 is out of that band - and the new bandplan also doesnt have beacons in that area.
Back to top
Graham, G3ZOD
Wed Sep 21 2011, 12:00PM
Graham, G3ZOD
Registered Member #971
Joined: Sat Jun 20 2009, 03:05PM

Posts: 6
Confused by the terminology: in the new IARU R1 band plan 50.050 is the "future international calling frequency". Is this the equivalent of 50.090 now as in "50.090 MHz Telegraphy - Centre of Activity"? If not, where would be the choice of centre frequency for calling CQ when not concerned whether replies are from UK, Eu or anywhere?

Also, I'm not sure what "future" is trying to convey - either it's part of the band plan or it isn't (?)

73 de Graham G3ZOD FISTS #8385
http://www.fists.co.uk

[ Edited Wed Sep 21 2011, 12:26PM ]
Back to top
David, G8LZE
Wed Sep 21 2011, 02:10PM
David, G8LZE
Registered Member #9
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:34AM

Posts: 25
Graham,
I understand your confusion and some issues may be clarified following a planned meeting of the RSGB Spectrum Forum where the RSGB representative at the Sun City conference will be in attendance, as will I on behalf of UKSMG.

From what I understand, and I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, 50.050 MHz was proposed as CW International calling but as not all countries have access to this part of the band right now it was included as an “aspiration” (perhaps to help twist arms to get the allocation?).

In the official IARU document 50.090 MHz is designated as CW Intercontinental Calling. Again, I may well be wrong, as what follows is largely supposition on my part, but there seems to be a desire to split Intercontinental and International calling to help avoid lost dx in times of good conditions. This seems to be backed up by note a).

Another issue that requires clarification is whether spot frequencies should be designated as “Calling” frequencies or “Centres of Activity”. This seems to be a historical matter. From what I can see it depends on whether ones background is HF or VHF. HF have had the luxury of bandwidth and VFO,s so embrace “CoAs” whilst VHF ops are used to “meeting” on one frequency and then QSYing, from the times of crystal control, and still covet their “Calling Frequencies”.

Any opinion you may have would provide useful feedback.

David
Back to top
Graham, G3ZOD
Thu Sep 22 2011, 01:10PM
Graham, G3ZOD
Registered Member #971
Joined: Sat Jun 20 2009, 03:05PM

Posts: 6
Hi David and thanks for your reply and the "future" makes more sense now. I'm still not sure what "international calling frequency" means though - is this intended to mean "callers from inside or outside your country" or does it mean "only callers from outside your own country"?

I think if nothing else, in the RSGB version of the band plans, "international calling frequency" (if included) and "intercontinental calling frequency" could be replaced with better wording, e.g. "calling frequency - replies from anywhere" / "calling frequency - replies from outside caller's continent" / "calling frequency - replies from outside caller's country".

Personally I'm in favour of "centre of activity" rather than "calling frequency" on the basis it may encourage people to listen and call more around the frequencies rather than just sitting on them.

73 de Graham G3ZOD FISTS #8385
http://www.fists.co.uk


[ Edited Thu Sep 22 2011, 01:16PM ]
Back to top
Graham, G3ZOD
Thu Sep 22 2011, 01:35PM
Graham, G3ZOD
Registered Member #971
Joined: Sat Jun 20 2009, 03:05PM

Posts: 6
Trev, G3ZYY wrote ...

...The UKSMG proposal provided for synchronised beacons in a 30kHz slot at the low end of the band and for the centre of activity to remain at 50.090. It also suggested frequencies for EME and data modes between 50.2 and 50.5.

Hi Trevor. I wonder what the details are for the proposed synchronised beacons?

I was just thinking (for example) that the three minute cycle of the NCDXF beacons would not be good on 6m, with the sometimes mercurial changes in conditions, not to mention the time wasted spent listening for them.

73 de Graham G3ZOD FISTS #8385
http://www.fists.co.uk
Back to top
Go to page   <<        >>