New repeater on 145.975?

Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?

Steve H

DieSea

2008-07-16 12:45:16 UTC

"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

More info Steve please

DieSea

stev eh

2008-07-16 12:51:09 UTC

Post by DieSea
"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

More info Steve please
DieSea

just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the top end
of 2 an S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a
repeater, output is 145.975 but no idea of the input.

Steve H

stev eh stevejhasdghsjhsdghjdghdghghghdhghgdgdhsgdsgdsgGDJHGJHSJHDGSJHGDJHGDJHGJH@TFIF.CO.UK

2008-07-16 12:53:39 UTC

Post by DieSea
"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

More info Steve please
DieSea

just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the top end
of 2 an S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a
repeater, output is 145.975 but no idea of the input.
Steve H

Looks like it's something to do with echolink, can't see why they want
it in the space section of the band.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/

Steve H

DieSea

2008-07-16 13:03:22 UTC

"stev eh"

Post by DieSea
"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

More info Steve please
DieSea

just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the top end of 2 an
S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a repeater, output is
145.975 but no idea of the input.
Steve H

Looks like it's something to do with echolink, can't see why they want it in the
space section of the band.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/
Steve H

I checked out he calls on qrz.com and came up with that website

Looks like some one is streaming audio on 145.975

DieSea

Whether its legal or not is a question for the RSCB

Stev eH

2008-07-16 13:16:55 UTC

Post by DieSea
"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

More info Steve please
DieSea

just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the top end of 2 an
S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a repeater, output is
145.975 but no idea of the input.
Steve H

Looks like it's something to do with echolink, can't see why they want it in the
space section of the band.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/
Steve H

I checked out he calls on qrz.com and came up with that website
Looks like some one is streaming audio on 145.975
DieSea
Whether its legal or not is a question for the RSCB

Probably legal but rather against the spirit of things, I WAS one of
those who never used the echo link system but was happy to let them play.

The RSGB would not do anything about this.

Steve H

H***@gmail.com

2008-07-16 13:25:43 UTC

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:03:22 +0100, "DieSea"

Post by DieSea
Whether its legal or not is a question for the RSCB

No - try Offcom

Chris Kirby

2008-07-16 18:52:51 UTC

Post by H***@gmail.com

Post by DieSea
Whether its legal or not is a question for the RSCB

No - try Offcom

No - try Ofcom :-)

If its only streaming audio received over the air onto the internet, I
can't see anything illegal, but if it transmits audio from
internet-connected third parties out over the air, then the sysop
should have an NoV, and I can't imagine an NoV being issued for
145.975.

--
Chris
G4FZN

class_a

2008-07-16 19:48:41 UTC

Post by Chris Kirby

Post by H***@gmail.com

Post by DieSea
Whether its legal or not is a question for the RSCB

No - try Offcom

No - try Ofcom :-)
If its only streaming audio received over the air onto the internet, I
can't see anything illegal, but if it transmits audio from
internet-connected third parties out over the air, then the sysop
should have an NoV, and I can't imagine an NoV being issued for
145.975.

Plus, whoever the 'sysop' is would need to identify at least every 15
minutes.

GM0ONX

2008-07-16 13:47:17 UTC

On Jul 16, 2:03 pm, "DieSea"

Post by DieSea
"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

More info Steve please
DieSea

just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the top end of 2 an
S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a repeater, output is
145.975 but no idea of the input.
Steve H

Looks like it's something to do with echolink, can't see why they want it in the
space section of the band.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/
Steve H

I checked out he calls on qrz.com and came up with that website
Looks like some one is streaming audio on 145.975
DieSea
Whether its legal or not is a question for the RSCB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.

Len GM0ONX

stev eh

2008-07-16 14:07:53 UTC

GM0ONX wrote:
-

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans. Apathy
rules.

Steve H

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 16:46:19 UTC

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans. Apathy
rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

stev eh stevejhasdghsjhsdghjdghdghghghdhghgdgdhsgdsgdsgGDJHGJHSJHDGSJHGDJHGDJHGJH@TFIF.CO.UK

2008-07-16 16:50:08 UTC

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

That is a band plan for the HF bands....

Steve H

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 16:51:00 UTC

Post by stev eh ***@TFIF.CO.UK

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

That is a band plan for the HF bands....
Steve H

Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-16 17:00:31 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.

Nick.

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 19:14:58 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.
Nick.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.

I'll need to check the old licence again. I thought you need a NOV to
run an Internet Gateway. The Internet Gateway I run for my local
repeater certainly needed one even when it was running in attended mode.

Len GM0ONX

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 19:19:51 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.
Nick.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.
I'll need to check the old licence again. I thought you need a NOV to
run an Internet Gateway. The Internet Gateway I run for my local
repeater certainly needed one even when it was running in attended mode.
Len GM0ONX

Try again two words disappeared in the last edit. The cut and past works
slightly different in Mozilla.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to
with the RSGB. It is a IARU matter.

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-16 19:28:11 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
Try again two words disappeared in the last edit. The cut and past works
slightly different in Mozilla.
Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to
with the RSGB. It is a IARU matter.

Nope. Still wrong. See other post.

The IARU have NO legal or regulatory powers at all, anywhere.

Nick.

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 19:51:14 UTC

Nope. Still wrong. See other post.
The IARU have NO legal or regulatory powers at all, anywhere.
Nick.

The legal status or lack of it of the Band plan are not in dispute, i.e.
it has no legal status. What I am uncertain about is the legal status
of anyone running an Internet Gateway without an NOV. I thought you
needed one and that stated where on the band you operated.

The original question was

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
Probably legal but rather against the spirit of things, I WAS one of
those who never used the echo link system but was happy to let them
play.
The RSGB would not do anything about this.
Steve H

I said that enforcement issues had nothing to do with the RSGB. OFCOM
were responsible of enforcement issues.

Steve H replied

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

I corrected this by saying the IARU are responsible for the bandplan not
the RSGB.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Len GM0ONX

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-16 19:25:55 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.

The IARU are not in any way a regulatory authority. They have no
powers anywhere.
They are merely an association of national AR societies.

Nick.

Spike

2008-07-16 21:51:30 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.
Nick.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.

Only a week or two ago you were defending the RSGB against the charge
that thay are now irrelevant, by saying such things as
"...<gasp>...but who would liaise with the IARU... <cough>
<splutter>...".

Now it turns out you don't seem to know what the limits of the RSGB or
the IARU actually are. Amazing. Not.

--
from
Aero Spike

GM0ONX

2008-07-16 21:59:49 UTC

Say no morehttp://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.
Nick.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.

Only a week or two ago you were defending the RSGB against the charge
that thay are now irrelevant, by saying such things as
"...<gasp>...but who would liaise with the IARU... <cough>
<splutter>...".
Now it turns out you don't seem to know what the limits of the RSGB or
the IARU actually are. Amazing. Not.
--
from
Aero Spike

Not at all, just correcting another inaccurate anti RSGB rant ;-)

Spike

2008-07-16 22:06:28 UTC

Say no morehttp://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.
Nick.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.

Only a week or two ago you were defending the RSGB against the charge
that thay are now irrelevant, by saying such things as
"...<gasp>...but who would liaise with the IARU... <cough>
<splutter>...".
Now it turns out you don't seem to know what the limits of the RSGB or
the IARU actually are. Amazing. Not.
--
from
Aero Spike

Not at all, just correcting another inaccurate anti RSGB rant ;-)

Oh, I thought you were the one having the rant.....

PS: Your sig separator is broken.

--
from
Aero Spike

GM0ONX

2008-07-16 22:11:48 UTC

Say no morehttp://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

But unless and until, the contents of that document are added to the
Schedule of the UK amateur licence, it is not legally enforceable in
the UK.
Nick.

Your right Nick, but that wasn't my point. My point was it is nowt to It
is a IARU matter.

Only a week or two ago you were defending the RSGB against the charge
that thay are now irrelevant, by saying such things as
"...<gasp>...but who would liaise with the IARU... <cough>
<splutter>...".
Now it turns out you don't seem to know what the limits of the RSGB or
the IARU actually are. Amazing. Not.
--

PS: Your sig separator is broken.
--
from
Aero Spike- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted te

GM0ONX

2008-07-16 22:13:09 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Spike

2008-07-16 22:23:23 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.

--
from
Aero Spike

GM0ONX

2008-07-16 22:31:18 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.
--
from
Aero Spike

Feel better for that little rant?

Jim Stewart.....

2008-07-17 06:04:05 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.
--
from
Aero Spike

Feel better for that little rant?

this is what happens if I don't .........

Jim Stewart.....

2008-07-17 06:04:47 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.
--
from
Aero Spike

Feel better for that little rant?
this is what happens if I don't .........

looks like I said that .............

Spike

2008-07-17 07:06:19 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.
--
from
Aero Spike

Feel better for that little rant?

Your sig separator is *still* broken.

So, apart from recently demonstrating that you knew nothing of the
RSGB's recent history (read: mendacity, self-interest), OFCOM's recent
history (read: democratic consultations), or what the IARU can and
cannot do, you confirm that you are both antisocial and ignorant.

IOW, a fuckwit.

Have a nice day, if you manage to get out of bed successfully.

--
from
Aero Spike

mick

2008-07-17 07:46:40 UTC

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:06:19 +0100, Spike wrote:

<snip>

Post by Spike
Your sig separator is *still* broken.
So, apart from recently demonstrating that you knew nothing of the
RSGB's recent history (read: mendacity, self-interest), OFCOM's recent
history (read: democratic consultations), or what the IARU can and
cannot do, you confirm that you are both antisocial and ignorant.
IOW, a fuckwit.
Have a nice day, if you manage to get out of bed successfully.

<grin>

I've not been able to follow this jolly little banter. I assume that said
personage is using google groups. I thought that radio amateurs were
intelligent enough to realise that that's a bad idea! OTOH perhaps he's
selling trainers & fake watches in his spare time... ;-)

To GG person: the sig seperator is <dash> <dash> <space> and the space is
important!

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

Spike

2008-07-17 07:54:19 UTC

Post by mick
<snip>

<grin>
I've not been able to follow this jolly little banter. I assume that said
personage is using google groups. I thought that radio amateurs were
intelligent enough to realise that that's a bad idea! OTOH perhaps he's
selling trainers & fake watches in his spare time... ;-)
To GG person: the sig seperator is <dash> <dash> <space> and the space is
important!

The problem lies with his news client, which is not separating the sig
from the message on 'reply'; or just perhaps he's doing a very poor
cut-and-paste job. My sig is properly configured - it's quite
straightforward, as you illustrate.

--
from
Aero Spike

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 08:27:11 UTC

Post by mick
<snip>

<grin>
I've not been able to follow this jolly little banter. I assume that said
personage is using google groups. I thought that radio amateurs were
intelligent enough to realise that that's a bad idea! OTOH perhaps he's
selling trainers & fake watches in his spare time... ;-)
To GG person: the sig seperator is <dash> <dash> <space> and the space is
important!

It depends were I am posting from. I use googlegroups when I am not at
my own PC and thunderbird/albasani when I am.

:-)

Spike

2008-07-17 09:41:50 UTC

Post by mick
I've not been able to follow this jolly little banter. I assume that said
personage is using google groups. I thought that radio amateurs were
intelligent enough to realise that that's a bad idea! OTOH perhaps he's
selling trainers & fake watches in his spare time... ;-)
To GG person: the sig seperator is <dash> <dash> <space> and the space is
important!

It depends were I am posting from. I use googlegroups

That's one of your problems, right there.

Post by Len GM0ONX
when I am not at my own PC and thunderbird/albasani when I am.

Sometimes, paying for a product can result in obtaining superior
performance. e.g. Agent newsreader and news.individual.net.

I realise that for you, paying for something that might otherwise be
'free' might be a foreign concept, but I see no reason why others
should suffer as a result of such a skinflint approach.

--
from
Aero Spike

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 11:17:45 UTC

It depends were I am posting from. I use googlegroups

That's one of your problems, right there.

Post by Len GM0ONX
when I am not at my own PC and thunderbird/albasani when I am.

Sometimes, paying for a product can result in obtaining superior
performance. e.g. Agent newsreader and news.individual.net.
I realise that for you, paying for something that might otherwise be
'free' might be a foreign concept, but I see no reason why others
should suffer as a result of such a skinflint approach.
--
from
Aero Spike

You say being a 'skinflint' as if it’s a bad thing! I would NOT wish
to spend ANY money to access this NG, it is just not that important to
me. It is just something I do when I’m bored with the TV, when I'm
tuning round the bands on the radio and at lunch time at work. Its
nothing of any REAL importance that would require money to be spent.

PAY to hear the views expressed on here, are you serious!!!! The very
thought of it!!!

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 12:13:10 UTC

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Len GM0ONX

Post by Len GM0ONX
PAY to hear the views expressed on here, are you serious!!!! The very
thought of it!!!

Abso-bally-lutely!
There's only one regular poster on here who I'd consider paying to
read the views of.

Fortunately I can read those views before posting them. ;-)

Nick.

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 12:20:51 UTC

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Len GM0ONX

Post by Len GM0ONX
PAY to hear the views expressed on here, are you serious!!!! The very
thought of it!!!

Abso-bally-lutely!
There's only one regular poster on here who I'd consider paying to
read the views of.
Fortunately I can read those views before posting them. ;-)
Nick.

So can I but I can't be ar*ed to do so!

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 11:16:32 UTC

Post by Spike
Sometimes, paying for a product can result in obtaining superior
performance. e.g. Agent newsreader and news.individual.net.

Pay? For Agent newsreader?
How does that work then.

Nick

Spike

2008-07-17 12:03:41 UTC

Post by Spike
Sometimes, paying for a product can result in obtaining superior
performance. e.g. Agent newsreader and news.individual.net.

Pay? For Agent newsreader?
How does that work then.

Quite easily....it isn't Free Agent ;-)

--
from
Aero Spike

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 12:08:05 UTC

Post by Spike
Quite easily....it isn't Free Agent ;-)

Neither is mine... I didn't pay for it. ;-)

Nick

H***@gmail.com

2008-07-17 12:16:05 UTC

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
Neither is mine... I didn't pay for it. ;-)

As a Beta tester for 3,4 and maybe 5 I hope you go to Hell ;-)

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 14:10:23 UTC

Post by H***@gmail.com
As a Beta tester for 3,4 and maybe 5 I hope you go to Hell ;-)

I do. As often as I can spare the time... The damned place won't run
itself and you just can't get reliable deputies.

Nick

class_a

2008-07-17 19:39:21 UTC

Post by H***@gmail.com
As a Beta tester for 3,4 and maybe 5 I hope you go to Hell ;-)

I do. As often as I can spare the time... The damned place won't run
itself and you just can't get reliable deputies.

Well, you do employ numpty CBers, so what do you expect?

The Legend Returns

2008-07-17 21:42:12 UTC

Post by Spike
Quite easily....it isn't Free Agent ;-)

Neither is mine... I didn't pay for it. ;-)

There's not much you do pay for, Me Lord, including your staff...

tox

class_a

2008-07-17 21:38:25 UTC

Post by The Legend Returns

Post by Spike
Quite easily....it isn't Free Agent ;-)

Neither is mine... I didn't pay for it. ;-)

There's not much you do pay for, Me Lord, including your staff...

He pays them what they're worth....

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-18 06:12:32 UTC

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:42:12 +0100, "The Legend Returns" <trabant

Post by The Legend Returns

Post by Spike
Quite easily....it isn't Free Agent ;-)

Neither is mine... I didn't pay for it. ;-)

There's not much you do pay for, Me Lord, including your staff...
tox

Why pay for something which you can get free?

Paying for something such as Agent when you can avoid doing so, only
serves to salve the conscience of the purchaser and make him feel
good.

I have no conscience and where would be the point in me feeling good?

Nick.

Jim Stewart.....

2008-07-17 05:59:49 UTC

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.

wish he would...it would save me putting in all those > .........

Jim Stewart.....

2008-07-17 06:03:05 UTC

Post by Jim Stewart.....

Post by Spike
PS: Your sig separator is broken.

I'll survive!

Oh, I'm sure you will but that isn't the issue. It looks like
confirming you're a fuckwit, though, so it might be worth attending
to.

wish he would...it would save me putting in all those > .........

which are needed so big Mannion can figure out who said what .....before he
makes a tit of himself again.....

Jeff

2008-07-17 07:31:16 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
I'll need to check the old licence again. I thought you need a NOV to
run an Internet Gateway. The Internet Gateway I run for my local repeater
certainly needed one even when it was running in attended mode.

That is correct *if* it is for the use of the amateur community in general
rather than the licensee.
So far no one has actually posted exactly what is happening, so this gateway
may or may not be legal depending on how it is configured.

73
Jeff

class_a

2008-07-16 19:52:30 UTC

Post by stev eh ***@TFIF.CO.UK

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

That is a band plan for the HF bands....
Steve H

Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

Pay particular attention to notes e and p. So why is audio being
streamed here?

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 19:59:03 UTC

Post by class_a

Post by stev eh ***@TFIF.CO.UK

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

That is a band plan for the HF bands....
Steve H

Say no more http://www.dx.ardi.lv/VHF-bandplans.pdf

Pay particular attention to notes e and p. So why is audio being
streamed here?

Why are you asking me?

class_a

2008-07-16 19:50:20 UTC

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

Surely the RSGB are a fully paid up member of the IARU? Are you saying
they don't care about IARU bandplans? Steve is right, apathy rules!

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-16 19:58:22 UTC

Post by class_a

Post by GM0ONX
Why would enforcement be a matter for the RSCB (or RSGB for that
matter). Enforcement is an OFCOM matter.
Len GM0ONX

Band plans are an RSGB thing, OFCOM don't care about band plans.
Apathy rules.
Steve H

IARU actually
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

Surely the RSGB are a fully paid up member of the IARU? Are you saying
they don't care about IARU bandplans? Steve is right, apathy rules!

I'm saying the RSGB has no statutory enforcement powers of any kind.
OFCOM are the only people that have that. Caring about something is one
thing, having the legal power to do something about it is another matter.

I still suspect the activity is illegal anyway. Time to get the licence
out to confirm or deny it. ;-)

26ATLVN

2008-07-16 15:03:29 UTC

"stev eh" > just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the
top end

Post by stev eh
of 2 an S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a
repeater, output is 145.975 but no idea of the input.

Was G8IQP a different signal strength to G4EQQ?

stev eh

2008-07-16 16:28:26 UTC

Post by 26ATLVN
"stev eh" > just putting the beams back up for 2 and 70, tuning around the
top end

Post by stev eh
of 2 an S9+ signal from G4EQQ and a G8iqp nattering away through a
repeater, output is 145.975 but no idea of the input.

Was G8IQP a different signal strength to G4EQQ?

GM0ONX

2008-07-16 12:47:19 UTC

On Jul 16, 1:40 pm, stev eh

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

Don't think so. Full list at http://www.ukrepeater.net/repeaterlist2.htm

26ATLVN

2008-07-16 13:30:58 UTC

"stev eh"

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

http://www.dcc.rsgb.org/ShowGates.asp?call=ALL
G8IQP - Text not Found.

Looks like he just downloaded Echolink and fired it up without an NoV.

Clause 10 allows you stream audio from yourself from the internet pretty
much anywhere in the band you like, but not other amateurs, so it's a no no.

Jeff

2008-07-16 13:57:39 UTC

"26ATLVN" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message > Looks like he just
downloaded Echolink and fired it up without an NoV.

Post by 26ATLVN
Clause 10 allows you stream audio from yourself from the internet pretty
much anywhere in the band you like, but not other amateurs, so it's a no no.

Not necessarily, 10(3) only prohibits "general unsupervised use by other
amateurs", and 10(1) requires that operation "is consistent with the terms
of the licence".

So a remote link is perfectly acceptable as long as it is either for the
licensees own use or it is not unsupervised and other licence conditions are
complied with.

Hearing both sides of a conversation over the link frequency does not make
it illegal.

73
Jeff

26ATLVN

2008-07-16 14:07:24 UTC

Post by Jeff
So a remote link is perfectly acceptable as long as it is either for the
licensees own use or it is not unsupervised and other licence conditions
are complied with.

Then the other guy (G4EQQ) should be signing G8IQP as he is supervised.

Post by Jeff
Hearing both sides of a conversation over the link frequency does not make
it illegal.

G4EQQ is coming in over the interwebs (via echolink) and being rebroadcast.
I could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

Jeff

2008-07-16 14:38:21 UTC

Post by Jeff
So a remote link is perfectly acceptable as long as it is either for the
licensees own use or it is not unsupervised and other licence conditions
are complied with.

Then the other guy (G4EQQ) should be signing G8IQP as he is supervised.

Post by Jeff
Hearing both sides of a conversation over the link frequency does not
make it illegal.

G4EQQ is coming in over the interwebs (via echolink) and being
rebroadcast. I could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

Remote operation does not preclude the licensee using 2m to link to Echolink
which is then connected to the internet.

Jeff

26ATLVN

2008-07-16 14:58:02 UTC

Post by Jeff
So a remote link is perfectly acceptable as long as it is either for the
licensees own use or it is not unsupervised and other licence conditions
are complied with.

Then the other guy (G4EQQ) should be signing G8IQP as he is supervised.

Post by Jeff
Hearing both sides of a conversation over the link frequency does not
make it illegal.

G4EQQ is coming in over the interwebs (via echolink) and being
rebroadcast. I could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

Remote operation does not preclude the licensee using 2m to link to
Echolink which is then connected to the internet.

As long as G8IQP is coming over the internet (from somewhere away from his
shack) and talking to G4EQQ direct then it would be OK. This is feasible
since G4EQQ is less than 10 miles away from his QTH. G8IQP would have to
ensure that no-one else on echolink but himself could connect e.g set a
password on his echolink node.

It could be that G8IQP is away on holiday somewhere and talking back to his
locals, which is all above board as long as no-one else can access the
system and key up the TX.

It's not what it reads like on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/ however.
Also his PC is switched off at the moment.

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-16 16:55:15 UTC

Post by Jeff
Not necessarily, 10(3) only prohibits "general unsupervised use by other
amateurs", and 10(1) requires that operation "is consistent with the terms
of the licence".
So a remote link is perfectly acceptable as long as it is either for the
licensees own use or it is not unsupervised and other licence conditions are
complied with.
Hearing both sides of a conversation over the link frequency does not make
it illegal.
73
Jeff

You may want to have a look at Section 14 of the new licence document.

Nick.

Jeff

2008-07-17 07:51:44 UTC

You may want to have a look at Section 14 of the new licence document.
Nick.

Section 14 is another Ofcom cock up; despite the heading "Recorded *or*
Retransmitted Messages", the text is badly worded and only refers to
"recording and retransmitting". ie. messages that are recorded and then
retransmitted. No mention is made to messages that are just retransmitted
without recording, despite their possible intent to do so.

In any case that section does not prevent the retransmission of callsigns,
it just requires that the origin of the transmission is made clear.

The only vaguery is what constitutes a message "addressed to the licensee"
when considering a remote control audio link. Is it the message received by
the remote station, in which case remote audio would be next to impossible
to use practically, or is it the message from the remote station to the
operator, in which case there is not a problem.

73
Jeff

Spike

2008-07-17 07:59:31 UTC

Post by Jeff
Not necessarily, 10(3) only prohibits "general unsupervised use by other
amateurs", and 10(1) requires that operation "is consistent with the terms
of the licence".
So a remote link is perfectly acceptable as long as it is either for the
licensees own use or it is not unsupervised and other licence conditions
are complied with.
Hearing both sides of a conversation over the link frequency does not make
it illegal.

You may want to have a look at Section 14 of the new licence document.

Section 14 is another Ofcom cock up; despite the heading "Recorded *or*
Retransmitted Messages", the text is badly worded and only refers to
"recording and retransmitting". ie. messages that are recorded and then
retransmitted. No mention is made to messages that are just retransmitted
without recording, despite their possible intent to do so.
In any case that section does not prevent the retransmission of callsigns,
it just requires that the origin of the transmission is made clear.
The only vaguery is what constitutes a message "addressed to the licensee"
when considering a remote control audio link. Is it the message received by
the remote station, in which case remote audio would be next to impossible
to use practically, or is it the message from the remote station to the
operator, in which case there is not a problem.

The most important thing to do here is NOT to ask OFCOM for
clarification - that's exactly how we went, within living memory, from
a couple of sheets of badly-typed but fairly obvious rules, to the
almightly unreadable cock-up that was BR68.

Let sleeping dogs lie, and enjoy any ambiguities to the maximum.

--
from
Aero Spike

stev eh

2008-07-17 08:05:04 UTC

Spike wrote:
.

Post by Spike
Let sleeping dogs lie, and enjoy any ambiguities to the maximum.

I must say I really enjoy tuning through a S9+40 FM signal in the middle
of the space section of 2M.

Steve H

H***@gmail.com

2008-07-17 08:06:40 UTC

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:05:04 +0100, stev eh

Post by stev eh
I must say I really enjoy tuning through a S9+40 FM signal in the middle
of the space section of 2M.
Steve H

How about a bit of DF and education

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 11:16:32 UTC

Post by Spike
Let sleeping dogs lie, and enjoy any ambiguities to the maximum.

DAMN! Too late.

Nick. ;-)

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 11:16:32 UTC

Post by Jeff
Section 14 is another Ofcom cock up; despite the heading "Recorded *or*
Retransmitted Messages", the text is badly worded and only refers to
"recording and retransmitting". ie. messages that are recorded and then
retransmitted. No mention is made to messages that are just retransmitted
without recording, despite their possible intent to do so.

That's the nice thing about badly worded law, it keeps lawyers in
work. ;-)

Post by Jeff
In any case that section does not prevent the retransmission of callsigns,
it just requires that the origin of the transmission is made clear.

It certainly means the station (doing the retransmission) must be
attended at all times. Good fun eh?

Post by Jeff
The only vaguery is what constitutes a message "addressed to the licensee"
when considering a remote control audio link. Is it the message received by
the remote station, in which case remote audio would be next to impossible
to use practically, or is it the message from the remote station to the
operator, in which case there is not a problem.
73
Jeff

I'm sure a suitable interpretation can be decided upon which shafts
this idiot who's doing it at the moment.

All we need is for somebody to report the interference to DuffCom and
wait 2-3 years until somebody there gets up off their backsides and
looks at it.

Nick.

mick

2008-07-17 12:14:35 UTC

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:16:32 +0100, lucifer wrote:

<snip>

I'm sure a suitable interpretation can be decided upon which shafts this
idiot who's doing it at the moment.
All we need is for somebody to report the interference to DuffCom and
wait 2-3 years until somebody there gets up off their backsides and
looks at it.

Oh for the days of sticking pins through coax in the dark...

;)

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

class_a

2008-07-17 19:41:05 UTC

Post by mick
Oh for the days of sticking pins through coax in the dark...

Sod that, just use a pair of wire cutters every foot on the visible coax :)

Jeff

2008-07-17 13:44:50 UTC

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
I'm sure a suitable interpretation can be decided upon which shafts
this idiot who's doing it at the moment.
All we need is for somebody to report the interference to DuffCom and
wait 2-3 years until somebody there gets up off their backsides and
looks at it.
Nick.

The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!

Jeff

stev eh

2008-07-17 13:50:06 UTC

The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!
Jeff

Sounds like a broadcast of the activity on his echo link node rather
than any two way communication.

Steve H

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 13:54:45 UTC

On Jul 17, 2:50 pm, stev eh

The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!
Jeff

Sounds like a broadcast of the activity on his echo link node rather
than any two way communication.
Steve H

What part of the world is the signal coming from? ie nearest town.

stev eh

2008-07-17 14:02:46 UTC

On Jul 17, 2:50 pm, stev eh

The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!
Jeff

Sounds like a broadcast of the activity on his echo link node rather
than any two way communication.
Steve H

What part of the world is the signal coming from? ie nearest town.

I'm in Lincoln and the two stations heard through it yesterday are in
the Derby area.

Steve H

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 14:19:15 UTC

On Jul 17, 3:02 pm, stev eh

On Jul 17, 2:50 pm, stev eh

The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!
Jeff

Sounds like a broadcast of the activity on his echo link node rather
than any two way communication.
Steve H

What part of the world is the signal coming from? ie nearest town.

I'm in Lincoln and the two stations heard through it yesterday are in
the Derby area.
Steve H- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

When you hear them next go to http://www.echolink.org/logins.jsp and
see if you recognise any G/M/2E callsigns in the user list

26ATLVN

2008-07-17 14:22:41 UTC

Post by Len GM0ONX
When you hear them next go to http://www.echolink.org/logins.jsp and
see if you recognise any G/M/2E callsigns in the user list

neither one of them came up yesterday.

26ATLVN

2008-07-17 14:20:08 UTC

"stev eh"

Post by Len GM0ONX
What part of the world is the signal coming from? ie nearest town.

I'm in Lincoln and the two stations heard through it yesterday are in the
Derby area.

DE56 0UA according to whois.

DieSea

2008-07-17 14:02:41 UTC

"stev eh"

Post by Jeff
The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!
Jeff

Sounds like a broadcast of the activity on his echo link node rather than any
two way communication.
Steve H

I bet if some one whinged to the EchoLink hierarchy of his activity on the
Satellite frequency

He would told to cease and desist

If he didn't he'd have his key pulled

Its happened before

DieSea

2008-07-17 19:27:59 UTC

Post by DieSea
I bet if some one whinged to the EchoLink hierarchy of his activity on the
Satellite frequency

Tried that ! - this is the response I got within about 10 minutes of
sending a message to the EchoLink Support people:

I think you had better go back and "READ" the "ENTIRE" page G8IQP has. The
"ONLY" thing it has to do with EchoLink is his mention of his EchoLink node
number. All the other things he does with that web page makes use of other
programs (READ THE BOTTOM OF HIS PAGE).

--
VS

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 14:10:23 UTC

Post by Jeff
The problem seems to be that no one is exactly sure what he is doing!!
Jeff

Never mind.... I'm sure we can find something to get him on.
It just needs the political will.

Nick.

The Legend Returns

2008-07-18 03:27:47 UTC

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
All we need is for somebody to report the interference to DuffCom and
wait 2-3 years until somebody there gets up off their backsides and
looks at it.

2-3 years, eh?

Nowhere near as long as I've been waiting for me bleedin' wages!!!

tox

class_a

2008-07-18 03:27:34 UTC

Post by The Legend Returns

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
All we need is for somebody to report the interference to DuffCom and
wait 2-3 years until somebody there gets up off their backsides and
looks at it.

2-3 years, eh?
Nowhere near as long as I've been waiting for me bleedin' wages!!!

Which itself is nowhere near as long as you've owned an RAE manual (20
years?) and still have never managed to pass _any_ amateur radio exams.

Dead Paul

2008-07-16 18:16:36 UTC

Post by stev eh
Are they issuing NOV's for repeaters in the space section of 2M?
Steve H

The few repeaters round here are rarely used and a complete waste of
"space" not that the band is choca with simplex either...

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

2008-07-17 19:24:13 UTC

Sounds to me like he is operating some sort of Gateway - the sooner
someone does something about it the better !

Calls heard in the last few minutes:

M1ARE or M1ARU
G8IQP
G1ZCK

Mention was made of 4m too

Two different voices can be heard at times, with one on the Left and one
on the right speaker.

--
VS

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 19:37:52 UTC

Post by VS
Sounds to me like he is operating some sort of Gateway - the sooner
someone does something about it the better !
M1ARE or M1ARU
G8IQP
G1ZCK
Mention was made of 4m too
Two different voices can be heard at times, with one on the Left and one
on the right speaker.

The following users are on the system. It doesn't mean they are acting
as a link but are any known in the area?
G0DRJ Durham UK (1) ON 20:26 1486
G0HBL Alderman BUSY 20:29 363271
G0HLM Hartlebury Worcs ON 20:27 15410
G0LGS Cheltenham BUSY 20:25 54792
G0RME Stafford UK ON 20:25 5852
G0RPR WIGAN BUSY 20:26 3118
G0STR Edgware, London ON 20:30 183406
G0VDU St Austell Cornwall BUSY 20:24 283155
G0WKM Mendips - Somerset - UK BUSY 20:26 392925
G0WLG MALVERN BUSY 20:24 391231
G1CQF SHELDON ENGLAND ON 20:26 329020
G1FRM call me on MB7IGH-L ON 20:25 90195
G1LAN HULL East yorkshire UK ON 20:28 381800
G1STD Sunderland ON 20:27 124470
G1TDQ PORTSMOUTH / UK ON 20:31 59761
G3ORH Busy but available (1) ON 19:26 391876
G4DIU Bulwell RNARS 391 ON 20:26 168952
G6ISB Nottingham UK (1) ON 20:25 1162
G6UGA Birmingham ON 20:23 251481
G6UNC Please don't be shy ON 20:28 115900
G7MTJ appleby lincs ON 20:28 3078
G7POG Mountford ON 20:27 3142
G7VON ..away from keyboard... BUSY 20:25 260307
G8AXA In Conference *ECHOTEST* ON 20:29 287757
G8BGI In QSO (1) ON 20:29 357355
G8BQH Sorry busy right now BUSY 19:24 72582
G8TNE Looking for G0VDU on (1) BUSY 20:24 272683
M0APG England ON 20:27 250747
M0JMD Mablethorpe.England. ON 20:27 183019
M0WRI N/East UK BUSY 20:27 3227
M0WTW Royal Tunbridge Well (1) ON 19:27 249033
M1ATF Newcastle staffs ON 20:27 114545
M1BGF In Conference GM1VUL ON 20:27 267282
M1EAK clacton essex u.k BUSY 20:28 1283
M1EXW camden lock ON 20:29 393758
M1GUR Leicester, UK ON 20:29 87254
M1WML steppIR antennas BUSY 20:25 3207
M3CIO Nottingham UK (1) ON 20:25 82009
M3JCA Kettering (1) ON 20:30 77078
M3UTG Bradford United King (1) ON 20:26 377517
M3VHQ Essex, UK (Ex Saffa.) ON 20:29 389121
M3VXX LISTENING AT WORK ON 20:25 354553
M3VYK Wallasey UK ON 20:25 376854
M3WML www.steppIR.com BUSY 20:31 24557
M3XJM England London (ham) ON 20:27 382068
M6PTM High Wycombe (1) ON 20:26 391490

26ATLVN

2008-07-17 20:14:10 UTC

The following users are on the system. It doesn't mean they are acting as
a link but are any known in the area?

if he was using echolink 304105 would show up somewhere on that list and it
doesn't so he ain't running echolink.

He could be using eQSO. You can run your own server on your own PC give all
your buddies passwords etc and no one's to know. God only know why he's
streaming it out on 145.975 though with a signal big enough to get to
Lincoln.

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 20:26:17 UTC

Post by 26ATLVN
He could be using eQSO. You can run your own server on your own PC give all
your buddies passwords etc and no one's to know. God only know why he's
streaming it out on 145.975 though with a signal big enough to get to
Lincoln.

Shirley the 'why' is easy.
He's too damned thick to know any better.

Nick.

class_a

2008-07-17 20:45:33 UTC

Shirley the 'why' is easy.
He's too damned thick to know any better.

Is he someone that was too lazy or two stupid...... you know the rest....

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-17 21:01:29 UTC

Post by class_a

Post by l***@eternal-flames.gov
Shirley the 'why' is easy.
He's too damned thick to know any better.

Is he someone that was too lazy or two stupid...... you know the rest....

Indeed.
Not so much IQP as IQ0

Nick.

Jeff

2008-07-18 07:34:26 UTC

Snip>

The only stations that can act as links show up in the Echolinkl list with
suffix -L or -R. This is not optional, the Echolink system will not allow a
station to act as a link until it has registered as a link or a repeater,
and the addition of the suffix is automatic.

That is not to say that someone cannot use another program to do something
with the audio that you may receive over Echolink from a "non-link" station.

Jeff

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-18 08:30:30 UTC

Snip>
The only stations that can act as links show up in the Echolinkl list with
suffix -L or -R. This is not optional, the Echolink system will not allow a
station to act as a link until it has registered as a link or a repeater,
and the addition of the suffix is automatic.
That is not to say that someone cannot use another program to do something
with the audio that you may receive over Echolink from a "non-link" station.
Jeff

I am advised the matter has already been the subject of a report to
OFCOM. We will have to wait and see what the outcome is.

Len

26ATLVN

2008-07-18 08:54:39 UTC

I am advised the matter has already been the subject of a report to OFCOM.
We will have to wait and see what the outcome is.

All looks a bit fishy to me.

26ATLVN

2008-07-17 20:20:26 UTC

Are you hearing this on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/ or over the
air?

Len GM0ONX

2008-07-17 20:42:40 UTC

Are you hearing this on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/ or over the
air?

I think you've found the likely source. The question is 'is it legal'?
as it would appear from your description to be a unattended broadcast.

26ATLVN

2008-07-17 20:49:30 UTC

Are you hearing this on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/ or over the
air?

I think you've found the likely source. The question is 'is it legal'? as
it would appear from your description to be a unattended broadcast.

I've yet to hear it Old Man. You'll have to ask Stev eh or VS.

2008-07-18 12:14:58 UTC

Are you hearing this on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/ or over the
air?

From the web !

--
VS

26ATLVN

2008-07-18 12:25:34 UTC

Post by VS

Are you hearing this on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/holbrook/ or over the
air?

From the web !

Well there's no law against that and no reason to suppose the net was on
145.975 other than what it says on the website. There's only a problem if
it's the otherway round i.e. net comes in over web and is sent out on 2m.

Jim Stewart.....

2008-07-18 12:36:40 UTC

Post by 26ATLVN
Well there's no law against that and no reason to suppose the net was on
145.975 other than what it says on the website. There's only a problem if
it's the otherway round i.e. net comes in over web and is sent out on 2m.

there SHOULD be a law against the whole thing.......

l***@eternal-flames.gov

2008-07-18 13:37:09 UTC

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:36:40 +0100, "Jim Stewart....."

Post by Jim Stewart.....

there SHOULD be a law against the whole thing.......

There used to be. But then, Mrs T brought in the concept of "care in
the community" and individuals such as the brain-dead example behind
this claptrap, were released from the secure units they should be
detained in, into the wider community.

Nick.

Walt Davidson

2008-07-18 17:14:36 UTC