Go to page   <<        >>  

PROPOSED QSY OF IARU REGION-1 BEACONS

Author Post
Miguel, EA4EOZ
Thu Mar 25 2010, 02:26PM
Miguel, EA4EOZ
Registered Member #1229
Joined: Tue Mar 23 2010, 01:26PM

Posts: 5
After reading your comments I think it will be very difficult if not imposible to accomodate all we want in so few kHz, so maybe a planning simmilar to the one used at 28 MHz could be useful for all of us:

50.000-50.050 CW Exclusive
50.050-50.100 (useful) Beacons
50.100+ All modes (Mainly SSB)

Some beacons should to be moved in frecuency (some, not all). It could be followed by a recomendation to switch off superfluous/vanity beacons and a guide to instruct how to set up an useful and coordinated beacon for those really interested.

I don't know how is the situation on your area, but here the first 3 or maybe 4 kHz are unusable because hundreds of birdies and other digital noises. 25/50 MHz seems to be a very common clock frecuency in the digital world.

Those sharply tuned antenas at 50.110 are really a problem if you want to do any change. But understand it is impossible to have beacons, CW, SSB, EME and other things in almost a single frecuency.

Does 50kHz of CW exclusive usage suffice?
Does 50kHz beacon segment suffice?
How many kHz would be needed for EME usage?
What about France and Germany?

These are the questions to be answered now
Back to top
Graham, M0AEP
Thu Mar 25 2010, 04:52PM
Graham, M0AEP
Registered Member #36
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 09:38PM

Posts: 2
Thanks to David & Trevor for alerting us to these proposals which otherwise may have slipped past virtually un-noticed. I'm unsure about moving beacons higher up the band within the mentioned timescales. As mentioned elsewhere the opening up of 50.00 - 50.08 MHz to CW traffic, especially with the, hopefully, improving conditions and additional operators trying 6M for the first time in these conditions might help ease QRM in the present narrow cw sector? The impact of this action in the present beacon sector could surely always be subject to ongoing review and assessment. Could it even help reduce the number of beacons needed? We need more of us to input thoughts on this topic from inside and outside the UK.
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Thu Mar 25 2010, 05:35PM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
I have tried to drum up interest by putting on the chat pages these forum pages – but going by the lack of input it seems that virtually everybody in UK isn’t interested.
I think it is worth pointing out that the decision has all but been made. This says it all:-

“9. Bandplanning (Papers 02; 03; 04; 05; 06; 07; 19; 20; 21)
Document B02
Subject PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE 50MHz BEACON SUB-BAND
Society Radio Society of Great Britain
Contact David Butler G4ASR
The following points came out of the discussion:
DARC – Need a footnote as they currently would not be able to put beacons in that part of the
band. Proposal is for a footnote that countries affected in this way would be excluded from the
move until such time as their administration allows them to move to the new beacon band.
NRRL – Would like to see a timescale. Beacons not moved by the end of that period need to be
turned off. Propose that the changeover is complete by end-2012.
Action: G4ASR to liaise with the beacon coordinator (G0RDI).
Vienna_2010_C5 Meeting Minutes 6
2010-02-21
Recommendation: To move the beacon band to 50.400-50.500 by end-2012. Beacons not
moved by end-2012 to be closed down. A footnote to be added that some countries are
currently unable, for regulatory reasons, to have beacons in that part of the band and
would be exempt from the deadline until such time as their regulator permits the move, but
will still be listed in the Region 1 beacon list.

The recommendation was agreed unanimously and will be taken to the EC for ratification.”


I liken this situation to Planning permission – you apply, give notice for objections to be heard and time, then a decision is made. It is assumed that if you don’t say anything then you agree / aren’t against the proposal.
David did give notice – but it would seem few responded – so what option did he have – only to go forward with the proposal – which, again has to be pointed out, was accepted by all the other societies present. It might be that the other societies didn’t put the proposal forward loudly enough – that is for those members in those countries to take up with their society.
If it is possible to modify the accepted proposal then I have to say that I might be more inclined to go with the core of Miguel’s thoughts but with a twist – I would say 50.000 to 50.040 for beacons ( only authorise and required) 50.040 to 50.100 CW and then band plan as is.
I realise some countries are a bit limited – but I have to say we cant all be held back by one group – surely its up to those that are affected to lobby their societies to get their band brought into line.
It still of course relies on all the vanity / ego / not required beacons being removed. Why do we need 2 beacons in the most crowded area of the UK – IO91 – anybody tell me why? – taking those off would release some bandwidth.
Anyway let’s hope that what ever occurs we will all go along with.
Back to top
Trev, EA5ISZ
Fri Mar 26 2010, 10:28AM
Trev, EA5ISZ

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

Posts: 143
Thanks ken,  I don't think we should give up on attempting to change, or at least postpone, this decision just because it appears to be 'done and dusted'.  The fact remains it has not yet been ratified; that fact alone means it is open to change, any other interpretation would be construed as railroading and I am sure IARU R1 don't want to be seen in that light.

I intend to lobby each of the representatives at the meeting shortly plus anyone else who may have any influence at all on the outcome.  It remains important that anyone who has any interest in the outcome expresses their preference in some way; the easiest being to post here.  My lobbying efforts will also include a link to this forum so your thoughts on the subject can be read by those with some influence on the outcome of the meeting.

For those reading this who have yet to express a view I would urge you to do so sooner rather than later as time is not on our side.

Thanks All, Trev G3ZYY, Chairman UKSMG
Back to top
Mark, PA5MW
Sat Mar 27 2010, 08:59AM
Mark, PA5MW
Registered Member #259
Joined: Mon Apr 14 2008, 01:52PM

Posts: 7
My 2cents;
Sorry for being 'late'.
Proposal for shifting beacon band to 50.400 => Agreed if, and only if proven that MUF is no spoiler here. Other wise I prefer a small segment like 020-050 for carefully selected relevant beacons. And leave perhaps 00-020 for EME?

Antenna not suitable for 50.400? Not very relevant I guess; you can build your own. Recent studies by YU1AW even claim that high-Q/small BW is not the way to go. Certainly there is lots of home made alternatives from DK7ZB, YU7EF and G0KSC. Pick your choice.

Proposal for 50.000 - 50.100 exclusive for telegraphy => Agreed

Some remarks on the other discussions and personal comment:
Current CW section 080-100 indeed is too small => propose to open it down to 050 at least. Or use Per's workaround.
Yes the beacon band has way too many local (EU) beacons. Agree with G4IGO's proposal.
EME band section: let some experienced users share their knowledge and opinions.

There will never be an instant 100% acknowledgement for initial proposals like this. Everyone has their personal objectives and secundairy requirements, opinions etc..... hence the above.
That allone makes it even more difficult to support your local representative.
Time will settle this all.


[ Edited Sat Mar 27 2010, 09:00AM ]
Back to top
Joe, CT1HZE
Sat Mar 27 2010, 10:03AM
Joe, CT1HZE
Registered Member #143
Joined: Fri Apr 04 2008, 07:45AM

Posts: 1
Hi all!
I fully support G3ZYY and I agree to all of his good reasons.
It is just crazy to make a change of the 6m beacon band in the peak of the solar cycle
and I don`t want to listen to loads of EU CW CQs in the new beacon range when I
want to try to listen to (weak) beacons from other IARU regions via F2 or TEP.
Also think about the financial and logistical effort: New crystals have to be ordered
for hundreds of beacons, this will cost thousands of Euros / Dollars.
I agree that during major openings the CW (only) section of the band may be a bit
small. Why not extending this range a bit up. E.g. up to 50.150. 50.110 could
be kept as the DX calling QRG either for CW only or SSB/CW. But the rest from 50.080
to 50.150 could be CW only and 50.150 EU SSB calling QRG.
The rest of the band plan could be shifted up accordingly.
This would cost nothing and could be implemented immediately after IARU has decided on it.
A few more points: There are many beacons which have not been "coordinated" by IARU. I don`t think that all of these beacons would ever leave their frequency and change to a new one.
I know several beacon keepers who have told me already that they will not change QRG regardless what IARU will decide.
What a mess we will have then????
The recent beacon range changes on 70cm and 24 GHz took MANY years.
And there are still several beacons active in the old range.
Of course, there it is not a big problem, because there is no QRM scenario like
we would have on 6m with wordwide traffic.
And last and in this case least: In Germany there is NO chance that we could transmit
between 50.000 and 50.080 MHz in the near future.
I know - DL, who cares but just wanted to let you know.

73 Joe, DL8HCZ/CT1HZE









Back to top
David, G4ASR
Sat Mar 27 2010, 01:39PM
David, G4ASR
Registered Member #118
Joined: Wed Apr 02 2008, 11:40AM

Posts: 16
The arguments relating to transitory muf openings and antenna bandwidths are, in reality, of little importance to the majority of 50MHz operators.

I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that I received no feedback from any special interest group regarding this proposal despite it being published on this web site some 5-months ago.

All comments apart from one (G4IGO) have come many weeks *after* the IARU interim meeting agreed unanimously to the proposal.

However the greatest concern (especially for me) was the lack of consultation with other IARU regions.

Therefore I have written to the IARU Region-1 VHF Committee Chairman requesting that this beacon proposal is *not* ratified by the IARU Executive Committee (EC) in April 2010 - until the other IARU Regions 2 & 3 have been consulted and feedback received.

I am pleased to report that the IARU Region-1 Chairman agrees to my email and the proposal will not be recommended for ratification at the April EC meeting.

73 David G4ASR
Back to top
Ken, G4IGO
Sat Mar 27 2010, 02:43PM
Ken, G4IGO
Registered Member #31
Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 08:16PM

Posts: 62
I find it frustrating to hear lots of beacons - most probably non coordinated - when E’s is present blocking DX beacons - but I have to put up with it.
Hundreds of beacons Joe – but how many are coordinated? The change for those that are coordinated should be borne by the various local societies (it might also make them think about how many beacons they have) and I am sure the likes of UKSMG and RSB would assist if required. Those that are non-coordinated – well they have to live with that. Again can anybody tell me why we have 7 Beacons in the UK – and 2 in the most populated area of the UK? A) what use are they with so many Hams active, B) how much QRM are they causing in that populated area and making it impossible to hear DX beacons – a case for removal ( and cost savings) I think.

I am disappointed that several beacon keepers wont comply if there was a change – this is bad – but it goes to show – if an organisation has no teeth then anarchy can prevail – so what a mess, as you say Joe, we will have. That means we can all TX when and where we like if we all take that attitude – where will we be?
I have just seen David’s post. I think the last 2 paragraphs will satisfy us – however – we must ALL give to David ( and those that are in other areas of EU through their local societies) all that he requires to help make an informed proposal.
Back to top
Miguel, EA4EOZ
Sat Mar 27 2010, 06:56PM
Miguel, EA4EOZ
Registered Member #1229
Joined: Tue Mar 23 2010, 01:26PM

Posts: 5
David, G4ASR wrote ...

I am pleased to report that the IARU Region-1 Chairman agrees to my email and the proposal will not be recommended for ratification at the April EC meeting.

73 David G4ASR


Maybe now is the moment to work with all three IARU regions to establish a common and worldwide bandplan for the 50.0 - 50.5 MHz segment. I think it is demonstrated actual bandplan needs to be modified and a bandplan for a worldwide band must be common in all countries, at least for the narrow band segment.

Just a thought aloud...

73!
Back to top
Trev, EA5ISZ
Sat Mar 27 2010, 11:54PM
Trev, EA5ISZ

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

Posts: 143
David thank you for your reply above.  As you know I have responded to you separately on all of the points you mention above but, for the sake of continuity here on the forum I will just repeat the following.  Arguments regarding MUF may be of little importance to some but a significant number of experienced operators, several of whom have posted here, believe otherwise.  Whilst there may be no factual evidence upon which to base an argument there appears to be plenty of empirical evidence that seems very compelling.  It is this MUF issue that goes to the core of the argument against moving the beacon band half a Megahertz HF.

Antenna bandwidths are a minor concern in comparison to the MUF issue but a concern nevertheless to several of our members.

The postponement of this proposal is very welcome and will hopefully allow all Regions to engage in meaningful discussion to determine a common way ahead.

Trev, G3ZYY


[ Edited Sun Mar 28 2010, 09:50AM ]
Back to top
Go to page   <<        >>